Support NeoGAF

[efyu_lemonardo]

well, we have had confirmation the new alien character is indeed CGI.

Is he the one being played by Andy Serkis? If so does that mean he's present on the set with his fellow actors? I have no objection to that kind of cg, as I think tech has progressed enough since the prequels to render a believable cast member.

The writing and actual performance are what will make or break it in my opinion, and after giving it some thought I think there are some things that could be done, on a conceptual level, to improve the chances of success.

 

[Cheebo]

Is he the one being played by Andy Serkis? If so does that mean he's present on the set with his fellow actors? I have no objection to that kind of cg, as I think tech has progressed enough since the prequels to render a believable cast member.

The writing and actual performance are what will make or break it in my opinion, and after giving it some thought I think there are some things that could be done, on a conceptual level, to improve the chances of success.

No word on whether Serkis's character is cgi or not. We know the one code named "Rose" that is widely assumed is played by Lupita Nyong'o is CGI however.

It is likely the character we got a quick glimpse of in the new teaser handing over the saber.

 

[whatevermort]

Re: the dialogue. They said it was rerecorded from Jedi, and ONLY for the trailer. It was recorded last week or something. Don't read too much into it.

 

[Crispy75]

Re: the dialogue. They said it was rerecorded from Jedi, and ONLY for the trailer. It was recorded last week or something. Don't read too much into it.

The original was used, with a re-recording subtly added as echo.

 

[Master Yoshi]

Could we maybe change the subject?

I'd love to discuss possibilities for whatever new alien main cast member is introduced. Live action vs. cg, English speaking, subs or just noises that the audience can understand based on how others respond, visual design and characterization, etc.

I've given a lot of thought to why Chewbacca was a fundamentally better character, on a conceptual level, than most of the newer aliens, and what possible lessons should be taken from him when constructing a new alien party member. Would love to hear other opinions on the matter.

I hope it's a Nautolan.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

Do you think JJ & Dem are scrutinizing the cut between now and December? Or are they just finishing FX shots? What do you think they're doing between now and the movie's release?

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Do you think JJ & Dem are scrutinizing the cut between now and December? Or are they just finishing FX shots? What do you think they're doing between now and the movie's release?

There was an interview that the other day where they said they're scrutinising heavily because they don't want the film to be 2.5 - 3 hours long like every other blockbuster is these days. They want it to move and are going to cut anything that doesn't need to be there.

 

[Discotheque]

There was an interview that the other day where they said they're scrutinising heavily because they don't want the film to be 2.5 - 3 hours long like every other blockbuster is these days. They want it to move and are going to cut anything that doesn't need to be there.

that's good to hear. need more lean films out here.

 

[Jables Swan]

There was an interview that the other day where they said they're scrutinising heavily because they don't want the film to be 2.5 - 3 hours long like every other blockbuster is these days. They want it to move and are going to cut anything that doesn't need to be there.

Fantastic news.

 

[obin_gam]

There was an interview that the other day where they said they're scrutinising heavily because they don't want the film to be 2.5 - 3 hours long like every other blockbuster is these days. They want it to move and are going to cut anything that doesn't need to be there.

that's good to hear. need more lean films out here.

Fantastic news.

With the prices of these days cinema tickets, ~90 minute movies are a ripoff imo.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Here's the exact quote from Kasdan.

And this new movie, first of all, it’s turning out really great. J.J. directed it so beautifully, and it’s so exhilarating and everything. It’s a big movie. It’s full of wonderful stuff, incident and character stuff and jokes and effects. One of the things that we always refocus on from the get-go was that it not be one of these very long, bloated blockbusters. A lot of very entertaining movies lately are too long. In the last 20 minutes, you think, why isn’t this over? We didn’t want to make a movie like that. I mean, we were really aiming to have it be—when it’s over you’ll say, “I wish there’s more.” Or, “Wait, is it over?” Because how rarely you get that feeling nowadays, and I think we’re headed there. But it means that there will be constant critical looking at it from now to the end, saying, “Do we need this? Do we need that? Is it better if this comes out, even though we love it?” Killing your darlings.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/lawrence-kasdan-star-wars-force-awakens

 

[Krev]

With the prices of these days cinema tickets, ~90 minute movies are a ripoff imo.

This is the thinking that lead to 3 hour Transformers and Hobbit movies.

Quality over quantity, every time.

 

[obin_gam]

Quality over quantity, every time.

Why not both?

Lawrence of Arabia is 4 hours long and not a single second is boring.

 

[liliththepale]

And this new movie, first of all, it’s turning out really great. J.J. directed it so beautifully, and it’s so exhilarating and everything. It’s a big movie. It’s full of wonderful stuff, incident and character stuff and jokes and effects. One of the things that we always refocus on from the get-go was that it not be one of these very long, bloated blockbusters. A lot of very entertaining movies lately are too long. In the last 20 minutes, you think, why isn’t this over? We didn’t want to make a movie like that. I mean, we were really aiming to have it be—when it’s over you’ll say, “I wish there’s more.” Or, “Wait, is it over?” Because how rarely you get that feeling nowadays, and I think we’re headed there. But it means that there will be constant critical looking at it from now to the end, saying, “Do we need this? Do we need that? Is it better if this comes out, even though we love it?” Killing your darlings.

Blah, I'll take "why isn't this over" rather than "I wish there's more" every day of the week.

 

[obin_gam]

Here's the exact quote from Kasdan.

We didn’t want to make a movie like that. I mean, we were really aiming to have it be—when it’s over you’ll say, “I wish there’s more.” Or, “Wait, is it over?” Because how rarely you get that feeling nowadays, and I think we’re headed there.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/lawrence-kasdan-star-wars-force-awakens

I dont agree with this part at all. I want to watch a movie that has closure, that feels complete. Sounds like he's talking about sequel bating which is cheap and shady as fuck.

 

[ginger ninja]

Why not both?

Lawrence of Arabia is 4 hours long and not a single second is boring.

That was sixty years ago. You gotta take in account the loss of attention span, especially in this age.

 

[nomis]

With the prices of these days cinema tickets, ~90 minute movies are a ripoff imo.

Oh god, this mindset is bleeding over from Gaming.

Never have I ever watched a two hour movie that I loved and thought, "oh wow, this would really have been worth my time and money at 2h40m".

 

[obin_gam]

That was sixty years ago. You gotta take in account the loss of attention span, especially in this age.

We can't give in!

 

[ginger ninja]

Oh god, this mindset is bleeding over from Gaming.

Never have I ever watched a two hour movie that I loved and thought, "oh wow, this would really have been worth my time and money at 2h40m".

As long as they are including it in the dvd cut and the director thinks his vision of the story is realized in the theatrical version, i am ok.

Gaming is another story however.

 

[Dommo]

Oh god, this mindset is bleeding over from Gaming.

Never have I ever watched a two hour movie that I loved and thought, "oh wow, this would really have been worth my time and money at 2h40m".

Correct.

Value of a story doesn't come from how long it compels you. It comes from how strongly, deeply and emotionally it compels you. If your story is as complex as a two hour film, then don't artificially extend it just to improve this ridiculous perception of 'value.' That only weakens the overall product.

I mean, wouldn't it be better if Lawrence of Arabia was stretched over a 10-episode season? It's a good quality movie and I want more of it, so make it longer! Of course not. Because it's a story that's designed to be feature length and stretching it out further than its necessary length only removes energy and pace and ends up making it fucking dull.

I dont agree with this part at all. I want to watch a movie that has closure, that feels complete. Sounds like he's talking about sequel bating which is cheap and shady as fuck.

I agree that cliffhangers and sequel setups over real closure is fucking gross, but I don't think that's what they're talking about here. It's not as though they're gonna cut off the end of the film to keep audiences 'wanting more.' I think he's just saying that they mean to deliver a brisk, quality product, and the end result is audiences enjoying it so much that they want more.

Like what's happening with Mad Max right now - it tells a complete story, but that's not stopping posters in the thread going apeshit for sequels, comics, spinoffs, art books - they want more because the product was of quality.

 

[Rootbeer]

I still think we'll get something over two hours. 90 mins is too lean.

I get people not wanting a film to feel boring. But the argument for a shorter film just baffles me. This is Star Wars (a mainline film at at that), you want to meander a little, see the Galaxy they are living in which is every bit as much a character as the ones with speaking parts. With the amount of story they are going to be telling, 90 doesn't give it the time to breath and show all the cool little side and background things Star Wars is known for.

How much of the Jabba's Palace or Ewok Village sequence would have been cut to get RotJ under 2 hours? How much of the Cantina, Jawas/Sandcrawler, Lars homestead etc. would have to be left on the cutting room floor to get A New Hope under 2 hours? On and on.

I don't think people should worry too much about the runtime. Just look at the runtime of other SW films as well as the other JJ Abrahms films for reference.

I'm in favor of longer though, for sure. If they made it three hours, I'm there. When i set down to watch my weekly Game of Thrones episode, that's only around 60 mins. 90 mins is barely any longer than that! So 30 mins more is barely any longer than a television episode. And with shows, you're only waiting a week until the next episode -- or a few months for the next season. With films you are waiting 2 or 3 years between installments, so hell yes give me all you got. It's very possible to have a long runtime and not feel bloated. Some of the best films every put to screen are over 150 mins and I'll be damned if anyone will tell me otherwise

They are definitely talking about films such as Transformers when they say they don't want it to be a bloated blockbuster. But it's a bad comparison for them to make because those films are devoid of compelling plot and characters, so unless they are saying their film is the same way, they have nothing to worry about!

 

[Jables Swan]

I don't care how long the movie is just as long as it's tight. I'm just happy they are spending the time to get it perfect.

 

[Discotheque]

Dommo pretty much summed it all up perfectly imo.

 

[Branduil]

Why are you guys going from "the film won't be 2.5 hours or longer" to "the film will be 90 minutes"?

 

[EloquentM]

I'm pretty sure it'll be close to 120 minutes which is fine with me.

 

[obin_gam]

Why are you guys going from "the film won't be 2.5 hours or longer" to "the film will be 90 minutes"?

Hyperbole. I thought that's how you use NeoGAF in the first place?

 

[robertsan21]

Blah, I'll take "why isn't this over" rather than "I wish there's more" every day of the week.

I´m with you on this.

I hate short movies, especially good movies.

 

[Rootbeer]

Why are you guys going from "the film won't be 2.5 hours or longer" to "the film will be 90 minutes"?

My post was in response to those fearing for something close to 90 minutes, which I don't think will happen. The interview did not specify a runtime when they said they didn't want it to be bloated, so your citing of "the film won't be 2.5 hours or longer" is no less dubious. Several of the Star Wars films do run close to 2.5 hours, so for all we know they were talking about something more around 3 hours like the Transformers or Hobbit/LotR stuff.

My take is that 90 minutes feels a bit short for a genre film, unless it's animated. 2.5 hours is around where a certain segment of viewers starts to complain that it's too long. Around two hours is a good median. I think this is why the film length discussions tend to come out looking like 90mins vs 2.5hrs as being the two sides

 

[Alex_Mexico]

My post was in response to those fearing for something close to 90 minutes, which I don't think will happen. The interview did not specify a runtime when they said they didn't want it to be bloated, so your citing of "the film won't be 2.5 hours or longer" is no less dubious. Several of the Star Wars films do run close to 2.5 hours, so for all we know they were talking about something more around 3 hours like the Transformers or Hobbit/LotR stuff.

It perplexes to this day how in the name of all that is holy can two Transformers movies (arguably the worst ones) got to have 3+ hours of runtime.

Having said that I hope SW Ep VII doesn't rush things and something tells me they have a more complex story to tell than Transformers

 

[chicko1983]

I don't care about the length as long as it's paced well and keeps me interested the whole time.

that said, it's easier to keep me interested if it's no longer than about 110mins I have found.

 

[Krev]

Why not both?

Lawrence of Arabia is 4 hours long and not a single second is boring.

Lawrence of Arabia isn't good because it's four hours long.

There are too many 90 minute films to count that are more rich and worthwhile than the entire eight hour Hobbit saga.

 

[hal9001]

At list a minimum of 120min is a my ideal for any blockbuster. For more indie/art house projects I don't mind a shorter run time.

 

[robertsan21]

Lawrence of Arabia isn't good because it's four hours long.

There are too many 90 minute films to count that are more rich and worthwhile than the entire eight hour Hobbit saga.

yeah hobbit yes. but Lord of the rings, nah its awesome.

 

[Par Score]

Blah, I'll take "why isn't this over" rather than "I wish there's more" every day of the week.

So you'd rather have more of something you don't enjoy, than less of something you do enjoy?

Weird.

 

[Little Nemo]

I haven't been following this whole thread, but I just read the Vanity Fair article and it had the correction at the bottom saying the title doesn't officially have Episode VII in it. For reals?

That seems so weird to me. I'm so used to them being identified with episodes. But I guess when the movies first came out they were mainly just marketed with the subtitle so maybe they're hearkening back to that. I hope they at least still put the episode number in the opening crawl.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

not for nothing, but the only two good Star Wars films are about 120-125 minutes long.

Love that they're looking for narrative efficiency tho. Those first two films really hit those beats and those moments what feels like just the right time for the kind of throwback, adventure serial its aiming for. Then Return of the Jedi comes out and they spend forty fucking minutes on an opening setpiece that doesn't have shit to do with the actual story, just so can they stuff in a bunch of muppets they can sell to kids and Leia reduced to a lovesick puppy in a metal bikini. And then the movie stops dead again so they can put the Ewoks out front and center to sell them to kids too, as they fuck around on Endor and Threepio tells boring stories about a campfire.

Like they didn't get anywhere close to earning that 130+ minute runtime lol

 

[EGM1966]

Why not both?

Lawrence of Arabia is 4 hours long and not a single second is boring.

A film should be the length it needs to be to best convey its narrative and themes and not a moment longer. Most films start to feel bloated once they get much over two hours. Mad Max 2 is just a tad over 90 minutes (95 or so IIRC) with a 13 minute chase sequence and feels perfect and that length for example.

I don't have an issue with a 4 hour Star Wars but only if it requires that time - as say Lawrence of Arabia does - to properly tell the tale. Unless they really give into modern action bloat (why throw Superman through one building when you can do it multiple times, why have our heroes take down a few foes and make good their escape when they can take down dozens, etc) I'm not sure a decent Star Wars self contained section of narrative should need much over 2 hours. I'm guessing we'll see around 2 hours 10 minutes or so if they try and replicate the narrative flow of A New Hope or Empire and have a bit of action bloat in there.

It's worth noting they won't be trying to take 2 films and make them into one 4 hour film. They'll be looking to the OT (I presume Abrams will ignore Prequels other than for some basic narrative canon) and targeting I'd guess a trilogy broken into 3 films or around 2 hours to 2 hours 15 minutes each.

You never know though they might go epic with it I suppose.

 

[Cheebo]

I love The Lord of the Rings trilogy but it created this belief in studios that audiences will not only tolerate, but embrace blockbuster films that are around 3 hours. Which was a terrible mistake.

The fact we get so many super hero films or Transformers movies that are near 3 hours is insane. Glad Star Wars is not falling into that trap.

I haven't been following this whole thread, but I just read the Vanity Fair article and it had the correction at the bottom saying the title doesn't officially have Episode VII in it. For reals?

That seems so weird to me. I'm so used to them being identified with episodes. But I guess when the movies first came out they were mainly just marketed with the subtitle so maybe they're hearkening back to that. I hope they at least still put the episode number in the opening crawl.

The Episode number in the crawl is 100% in the film. There was never any doubt or question about that.

Empire Strikes Back was always Episode V from day one. Yet it is never marketed that way.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Age of Extinction is a 165 minutes!?

How did anybody sit through that shit for so long!?!?

 

[sonicmj1]

I still think we'll get something over two hours. 90 mins is too lean.

I get people not wanting a film to feel boring. But the argument for a shorter film just baffles me. This is Star Wars (a mainline film at at that), you want to meander a little, see the Galaxy they are living in which is every bit as much a character as the ones with speaking parts. With the amount of story they are going to be telling, 90 doesn't give it the time to breath and show all the cool little side and background things Star Wars is known for.

How much of the Jabba's Palace or Ewok Village sequence would have been cut to get RotJ under 2 hours? How much of the Cantina, Jawas/Sandcrawler, Lars homestead etc. would have to be left on the cutting room floor to get A New Hope under 2 hours? On and on.

A New Hope is 2 hours and 1 minute. Empire Strikes Back is 2 hours and 4 minutes. Return of the Jedi is 2 hours and 14 minutes, and it could definitely be improved by cutting some stuff.

Right around 2 hours is a perfectly good length, and for a Star Wars movie, 150 minutes would definitely be bloated.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

Age of Extinction is a 165 minutes!?

How did anybody sit through that shit for so long!?!?

Yeah, no thank you.

The Force Awakens will be 2 hours and a few minutes at most I would think.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Attack of the Clones was 142 minutes?

why!?

 

[bengraven]

I wish Godzilla started in Honolulu instead of the 55-60 minutes of weak foreplay. I was rubbed so raw I could barely get it up when the amazing shit started happening.

 

[WadiumArcadium]

Attack of the Clones was 142 minutes?

why!?

It's the sand. It gets everywhere.

 

[DoctorFling]

Attack of the Clones was 142 minutes?

why!?

Lucas' poetry needed the time

 

[ratcliffja]

Why not both?

Lawrence of Arabia is 4 hours long and not a single second is boring.

I couldn't sit through an hour of it.

 

[Mariolee]

Attack of the Clones was 142 minutes?

why!?

There was a trade dispute that held a ban that kept the movie from ending.

 

[Cabbagehead]

I would be fine with a tight and fine tuned two hour and ten or twenty minute star wars movie. Since i want a adventure and not a pure action flick. Meaning that it's good if you don't notice how long it really is by movies end either way, but you got your monies worth.

 

[JB1981]

I couldn't sit through an hour of it.

Missing out on a great movie

This movie will be 2 hours, at least.No one suggested it would be 90 minutes like some Disney animated feature or something. Sheesh.

 

[Solo]

Lean, tightly edit 90-100 minute film > 150+ minute bloatfest, 100 times out of 100. Happy to hear that's the mindset on TFA. Blockbusters are getting more and more out of control with long runtimes, nice to see someone push back. Mad Max did this too and was brilliant for it. A movie should only ever be as long as it needs to be. If you can develop your characters and tell your story in 90 minutes, then your film shouldn't be a second longer.