Jump to content


Photo

"Outland"


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:19 AM

Well, I think story-wise it's clear that the whole place is corrupt, except for Connery and the doctor.  To me that lends credibility to the idea that rowdy miners probably have their own sense of worth and fear.

 

Not to detract from your points, but I guess the thing that gets me is that this film, if pitched, would not get made today, or would not get made the way it was way back in 79 / 80.  When I went and saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" (against my better judgment) I kind of knew what I was in store for.  And sure enough the film had lots of effects, lots of put down humor, a space raccoon, body function gags, and just a ton of pre-adolescent BS.  But that's the kind of film it is. 

 

And when I think of films like "Outland" or "2010", or even "Alien", it's like no one makes good serious scifi anymore.  Even films like "Gravity" or "Interstellar", to me at least, have issues no matter how impressive some of the visuals are.  "Outland" doesn't try to be something that it isn't, which to me at lest, makes it a good classic scifi film.

 

If "Outland" were pitched today, then odds are it would not get made.  Or, if it did, then Connery's character would be cast with someone like Wil Smith, there would be lots of pre-teen put down humor, everything would be lit with egg-crates and 5Ks, the miners would have a G-rated kind of rowdyness, and so forth.  It wouldn't be made for adults, but for pre-teen and teenage boys, and boys specifically.  

 

I mean you're arguing about having a respect for the audience, but I would submit to you that films like "Gravity", "Interstellar" or even slightly older films like "Mission to Mars" have absolutely no respect for any audience member save the young wide eyed kid who doesn't know enough to know what a good film is.

 

So yeah, I'm asking what you would have shot in terms of a story.  Some of the most obnoxious and rude people are some of the biggest cowards around.


  • 0

#22 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:31 AM

I'd imagine one of the biggest problems budget-wise with sci-fi (before getting into talk of vfx) is set construction; and also exotic locations (eg. desert). Dystopia type science fiction I think would be easier to do - I often mention a low budget movie called Soylent Green made in the early 70s. It made use of existing urban locations, with car wrecks and general urban decay lying everywhere etc (easily done), and a few matte-painting shots of futuristic cityscapes that were done at night time in near darkness to hide the cheap look. But the key to that movie was really the acting talent - Charlton Heston and especially Edward G. Robinson.

 

That's the sort of movie I'd like to see being made again - lower budget but concentrating on people and their problems/challenges/joys/fears/redemption etc, no or almost no CGI, great scripts with pathos, and real, believable (and lovable) people in them. A lot of the old films had characters that really stay with you. They were sort of lovable. Another trick for lower budget sci-fi is to film at a pre-existing mine, factory or treatment plant, if it's possible. Mad Max (as it was titled in Australia - I think it was called Road Warrior in the US) was a lowish-budget film that was set in a dystopic future too, but was set 'out west'. That film needed a lot of stunt work. I'm often thinking of ways to make a feature movie - what sort of formula will work best for low budget. If I ever did become a pro filmmaker I don't think I could work for the studio system. I'd want to make my own pictures.


Edited by Jon O'Brien, 03 November 2017 - 07:37 AM.

  • 0

#23 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:19 AM

Well, I think story-wise it's clear that the whole place is corrupt, except for Connery and the doctor.  To me that lends credibility to the idea that rowdy miners probably have their own sense of worth and fear.

 

Not to detract from your points, but I guess the thing that gets me is that this film, if pitched, would not get made today, or would not get made the way it was way back in 79 / 80.  When I went and saw "Guardians of the Galaxy" (against my better judgment) I kind of knew what I was in store for.  And sure enough the film had lots of effects, lots of put down humor, a space raccoon, body function gags, and just a ton of pre-adolescent BS.  But that's the kind of film it is. 

 

And when I think of films like "Outland" or "2010", or even "Alien", it's like no one makes good serious scifi anymore.  Even films like "Gravity" or "Interstellar", to me at least, have issues no matter how impressive some of the visuals are.  "Outland" doesn't try to be something that it isn't, which to me at lest, makes it a good classic scifi film.

 

If "Outland" were pitched today, then odds are it would not get made.  Or, if it did, then Connery's character would be cast with someone like Wil Smith, there would be lots of pre-teen put down humor, everything would be lit with egg-crates and 5Ks, the miners would have a G-rated kind of rowdyness, and so forth.  It wouldn't be made for adults, but for pre-teen and teenage boys, and boys specifically.  

 

I mean you're arguing about having a respect for the audience, but I would submit to you that films like "Gravity", "Interstellar" or even slightly older films like "Mission to Mars" have absolutely no respect for any audience member save the young wide eyed kid who doesn't know enough to know what a good film is.

 

So yeah, I'm asking what you would have shot in terms of a story.  Some of the most obnoxious and rude people are some of the biggest cowards around.

 

Well, GRAVITY was pretty slight fare, and certainly didn't look beyond its premise (what you wind up with at the end of GRAVITY is a far stronger notion - what do we do after ALL the satellites go down?), I thought the execution was amazingly good on the tech end of things. And I'm very hard to please when it comes to VFX. 

 

Except for the casting of the INTERSTELLAR lead (I'm of the opinion that INCEPTION AND INTERSTELLAR would have benefitted enormously from having John Hamm as the star of both films) and a few extremely wonky plot points (how DOES that little shuttle manage to take off from a planet with a gravity higher than earth and fly back up to orbit under its own power?), I found INTERSTELLAR to be a very solid film, one that pretty much stole the thunder from Kosinski's planned remake of THE BLACK HOLE. My credibility issues over INT disappeared on the 2nd viewing, as it kinda makes sense to me now.

 

Personally, I'm very partial to sf films that let you see some dirt get under the fingernails, so we're agreed on that aspect. I spent a long while developing a kind of AntiStarTrek universe, where if you have a non-interference directive for your gov't exploratory force, it is basically just cover for looking the other way while the private sector exploits new planets. I'd say FIREFLY was pretty close to what I spent a long time working on, except my concept had much better science (but the characters weren't all as interesting.) To get some real texture to the thing, you wouldn't have this easy warp drive, but a system that leaches heat out of your ship the longer you are going FasterThanLight, which lets you get into a pea-jacket-while-sipping-coffee-on-the-bridge feel to shipboard scenes.

 

I've also been making notes about a near-future asteroid mining story, in the vein of Allan Steele's writings. Kind of OUTLAND-like to a degree, but with my take on how the folks would behave (one of Steele's books has a US-surveillance-from-orbit program scuttled by the dockworkers, who are ex-bikers and various other types who don't like the idea of gov't window-peeping.) Have always thought Tom Hanks should have followed up FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON with HOW THE SOLAR SYSTEM WAS WON, with Arthur Clarke's unused ideas for 2001 (there's practically a whole book's worth of them in Clarke's THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001) as a basis for depicting the next century in manned spaceflight, and this is kind of in that vein. There's enough wealth in platinum out in the asteroid belt to change the whole way we do commerce here, somebody just needs to mine and/or tow that stuff back to Earth.


  • 0

#24 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:23 AM

I'd imagine one of the biggest problems budget-wise with sci-fi (before getting into talk of vfx) is set construction; and also exotic locations (eg. desert). Dystopia type science fiction I think would be easier to do - I often mention a low budget movie called Soylent Green made in the early 70s. It made use of existing urban locations, with car wrecks and general urban decay lying everywhere etc (easily done), and a few matte-painting shots of futuristic cityscapes that were done at night time in near darkness to hide the cheap look. But the key to that movie was really the acting talent - Charlton Heston and especially Edward G. Robinson.

 

That's the sort of movie I'd like to see being made again - lower budget but concentrating on people and their problems/challenges/joys/fears/redemption etc, no or almost no CGI, great scripts with pathos, and real, believable (and lovable) people in them. A lot of the old films had characters that really stay with you. They were sort of lovable. Another trick for lower budget sci-fi is to film at a pre-existing mine, factory or treatment plant, if it's possible. Mad Max (as it was titled in Australia - I think it was called Road Warrior in the US) was a lowish-budget film that was set in a dystopic future too, but was set 'out west'. That film needed a lot of stunt work. I'm often thinking of ways to make a feature movie - what sort of formula will work best for low budget. If I ever did become a pro filmmaker I don't think I could work for the studio system. I'd want to make my own pictures.

I like SOYLENT and the original WESTWORLD and a lot of SF pics that don't look too SF ... one I am especially strong on is DEATHWATCH, with Harvey Keitel and Max Von Sydow. Only tiny things indicating it takes place in a slightly futuristic time (made back around 1981 or so), but kind of like a science fiction version of NETWORK, and way too smart to find a big audience.

 

CHILDREN OF MEN really delivered the goods for me this century, but for other SF, I'd say EX MACHINA maybe (liked it but only saw it once, should see it again), because I think Garland might be a guy to watch for SF films, he has another coming soon. He and the ARRIVAL/BR 2049 guy might be The Ones.


  • 0

#25 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:13 AM

I'd imagine one of the biggest problems budget-wise with sci-fi (before getting into talk of vfx) is set construction; and also exotic locations (eg. desert). Dystopia type science fiction I think would be easier to do - I often mention a low budget movie called Soylent Green made in the early 70s. It made use of existing urban locations, with car wrecks and general urban decay lying everywhere etc (easily done), and a few matte-painting shots of futuristic cityscapes that were done at night time in near darkness to hide the cheap look. But the key to that movie was really the acting talent - Charlton Heston and especially Edward G. Robinson.

 

That's the sort of movie I'd like to see being made again - lower budget but concentrating on people and their problems/challenges/joys/fears/redemption etc, no or almost no CGI, great scripts with pathos, and real, believable (and lovable) people in them. A lot of the old films had characters that really stay with you. They were sort of lovable. Another trick for lower budget sci-fi is to film at a pre-existing mine, factory or treatment plant, if it's possible. Mad Max (as it was titled in Australia - I think it was called Road Warrior in the US) was a lowish-budget film that was set in a dystopic future too, but was set 'out west'. That film needed a lot of stunt work. I'm often thinking of ways to make a feature movie - what sort of formula will work best for low budget. If I ever did become a pro filmmaker I don't think I could work for the studio system. I'd want to make my own pictures.

 

I think I mentioned this earlier up in the thread, but one of the criteria for shooting a major release is that the project needs to be socially positive and inspirational in that same vein.  That wasn't always the case, but it is now.  If you go back the 70s and prior, you'll note that films just had good stories (mostly), and were usually socially responsible without trying to send too much of a message.  The story had ethics built into it by virtue of good writing.

 

When I saw "Mission to Mars" I didn't feel like I was watching a scifi film for adults, but one that was framed as being adult, but that had this cgi payoff at the end that I think appealed more to teenagers.  And that's the sense I get for a lot of scifi films shot in the last 20 years.  

 

Whatever.  Like I said, I'm sorry there weren't more films in the 80s like "Outland"--visually and story-wise.


  • 0

#26 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 November 2017 - 06:24 PM

 

 

When I saw "Mission to Mars" I didn't feel like I was watching a scifi film for adults, but one that was framed as being adult, but that had this cgi payoff at the end that I think appealed more to teenagers.  And that's the sense I get for a lot of scifi films shot in the last 20 years.  

 

One of the zillions of screenwriters on that film was a guy who had been trying to get a remake of QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (aka FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH) off the ground, and I think he wound up doing this just because they were going to step all over that UK film's principal conceit (that we ARE the martians.) That's a terrific science fiction concept, but it just got shoehorned into this mess of a movie, wasting it.


  • 0

#27 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:39 PM

Interesting, I did not know that.  I've always been of the opinion that UK films always seem more refined and polished than American films.  Which is kind of amazing since when I was working a lot all crew from the UK were salty as anything .... Ef-this, ef-that, everything was preceeded by "ef-ing".  With many apologies to UK and European types who come to this forum.

 

Not to beat a dead-horse here, but to me "Outland" is a better film both story-wise and technically than "Mission to Mars" I think largely because "Mission to Mars", at its core, had teenagers in mind.  So that film had a kind of candy gloss look to it, and the hokey mega-sized twirling alien at the end.  I won't say "Outland" didn't have teenagers in mind, but it's a film that all reasonably mature or adult minded people can enjoy, assuming they don't mind the scifi / outer space backdrop.

 

Again, I'm surprised we didn't get more like it.

 

I mean, I now know what it takes to get a project greenlit, but it's like if you can make a reasonably budgeted project that's solid, then why not shoot those instead of dumping a half-bil of US currency into one "mega-hit" which is speculative?  That's what I don't get.  Ergo why I don't see why more "Outland" kind of movies were made, and instead to this day we get "Guardians of the Galaxy" or the new "Thor" movie.

 

Just me.  Enough bitching.  I need to go kick off the rust and shoot some footage.

 

Laterz.


  • 0

#28 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1605 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 08:11 PM

I like SOYLENT and the original WESTWORLD and a lot of SF pics that don't look too SF ... one I am especially strong on is DEATHWATCH, with Harvey Keitel and Max Von Sydow. Only tiny things indicating it takes place in a slightly futuristic time (made back around 1981 or so), but kind of like a science fiction version of NETWORK, and way too smart to find a big audience.
 
CHILDREN OF MEN really delivered the goods for me this century, but for other SF, I'd say EX MACHINA maybe (liked it but only saw it once, should see it again), because I think Garland might be a guy to watch for SF films, he has another coming soon. He and the ARRIVAL/BR 2049 guy might be The Ones.


Yeah for me Children of Men, Ex Machina and Moon have been this centurys sci fi highlights, with Inception and Villeneuve's recent sci-fi outings also being impressive.

It's a pity with so much top quality TV fare nowadays that no sci fi series has come close to competing. Well, maybe Rick and Morty. :)

The new Star Trek is OK but not terribly inspiring, and shows like Man in The High Castle or The Expanse which have the potential to interestingly explore possible or alternate futures haven't really done so. The Handmaids Tale was very well done but hits you over the head with its grim message. Maybe Westworld will improve in its second season. But where is the sci fi series with the depth, breadth and unpredictability of The Wire or Deadwood or Game of Thrones?
  • 0

#29 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:06 PM

If/when we get a SF equivalent to THE WIRE, I will be utterly amazed.

 

I still can't believe we got THE WIRE at all, and that is after six viewings in eight years (I managed to miss it completely during the original run.)

 

Then again, I went through the new TWIN PEAKS three times before I let SHOWTIME drop last week, so I feel sort of, well ... quenched, right now.

 

CARNIVALE, THE WIRE, DEADWOOD, plus some short-lived UK shows like THE HOUR and THE GAME ... it's like all those countless theatrical disappointments in the last 20-30 years have been offset to a large degree for me.

 

I really still do miss the Kodachrome look of blue skies and deep shadows that are actually silhouette-black, and I massively miss seeing well-photographed miniature effects, but the powerful storytelling on some series has really overcome these handicaps.

 

I'm one of those few who actually think HIGH CASTLE improved 2nd season, but I find the look of the show a little off-putting. I watched about 20minutes of the new TREK and just didn't see the point. 


  • 0

#30 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1605 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 03 November 2017 - 11:29 PM

There are so many rich sci fi novels beyond just Phillip K Dick, who seems vastly over-represented in the world of sci fi movies and tv shows. What about Larry Niven's Ringworld, or Azimov's Foundation trilogy, or Gene Wolfe's fabulous Book of the New Sun series which I loved as a teenager.

Or if we look to more recent books, the work of China Mieville springs to mind as something that might translate well. I loved David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas, but the movie didn't do it justice, it should have been a long form series if anything. The Expanse was a sci fi book series supposedly comparable in scope to the Song of Ice and Fire series but the TV show doesn't hold a candle to GoT.
  • 0

#31 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 04 November 2017 - 10:40 AM

I used to read a lot of it in the 70s and 80s.  Some of it was very rich and worthy of having a shoot script translated from it.  Other books were garbage, just like any other genre.  Jack Chalker, Stasheff, Alan Dean Foster, Piers Anthony were some of the good authors.  Dalton, Culbreath, and a few others, in my opinion, weren't that good.  They weren't even hacks, just people writing any old thing that some publisher took a chance on.  

 

I think most studios and production companies back then just didn't know enough about the genre to take any chances on it.  I still think that's the case, but there's enough technical talent out there that it doesn't make a difference, you can make whatever it is you don't understand look good.  Dump a lot of cash in a project, and watch the returns.


  • 0

#32 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:02 AM

If/when we get a SF equivalent to THE WIRE, I will be utterly amazed.

 

I still can't believe we got THE WIRE at all, and that is after six viewings in eight years (I managed to miss it completely during the original run.)

 

Then again, I went through the new TWIN PEAKS three times before I let SHOWTIME drop last week, so I feel sort of, well ... quenched, right now.

 

CARNIVALE, THE WIRE, DEADWOOD, plus some short-lived UK shows like THE HOUR and THE GAME ... it's like all those countless theatrical disappointments in the last 20-30 years have been offset to a large degree for me.

 

I really still do miss the Kodachrome look of blue skies and deep shadows that are actually silhouette-black, and I massively miss seeing well-photographed miniature effects, but the powerful storytelling on some series has really overcome these handicaps.

 

I'm one of those few who actually think HIGH CASTLE improved 2nd season, but I find the look of the show a little off-putting. I watched about 20minutes of the new TREK and just didn't see the point. 

 

I've heard a bit about The Wire over the years, but never saw an episode.  There's so many police shows that a man gets exhausted of them (and family sitcoms too).  

 

And I guess the other reason I brought up "Outland" on this forum is because the SFX are mostly minis.  There's no CGI...maybe Jupiter's atmosphere, but the looks more like traditional animation to me (this is afterall 1981, and the kind of hardware to render that would have made the film prohibitively expensive ... but I could be wrong).  Regardless, the minis and use of ImtraVision, to me at least, looks more real and convincing than digital inserts.


  • 0

#33 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:40 AM

Yeah, I think Jupiter is just a large painted globe in OUTLAND, they didn't do CGI for planets till 2010.

 

I think the problem in OUTLAND fx-wise is that they were, to use a phrase I remember from a magazine, trying to produce post-STARWARS look with pre-2001 fx ... no motion-control, etc. Some of the better shots just used double exposures, no matting, to place the descending shuttle together in frame with landing gantries that are at the frame corners. So basically we're talking SPACE1999 approach to everything, which was often the case in the UK, since they didn't get motion control over there till ALIENS, so far as I know. (why they didn't just do the fx stateside? Maybe a money thing -- though OUTLAND had a healthy budget at the time. I remembered the budget being reported to be close to 30 mil, though I checked just now and the numbers I'm finding are in the 16-18 mil range.) It's almost like The Ladd Company projects were allergic to motion control, given this was their first film and THE RIGHT STUFF, done a couple years later, wound up limiting its use to just some of the orbiting capsule shots (but I think Kaufman's on-the-fly/no frills fx approach worked wonders there.)

 

Plus I remember that the modelmakers just about died when Hyams had the whole base spray-painted white with coarse spray that obliterated most of the detailing like scribe lines that they put into the thing, and the coarseness of the paint is such that you can sort of see the pebble-effect in some of the extreme closeups on the introvison shots (like when Connery is walking behind what look like teacups or rocket nozzles -- the scale is utterly blown.

 

Apparently they couldn't get a good exposure with the gray coloration (you'd figure they would have tested the approved prototype with wedges and lighting before commissioning the whole base model be done in that color), and couldn't go to a longer exposure, so making the thing white was the only option.


  • 0

#34 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:56 AM

There's significant griping in the Cinefex article on Aliens as to the paucity of moco availability in the UK at the time.

 

I'm very tired of police procedurals. It's practically all we make here now.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen it in HD, which would probably make it much less convincing. I might avoid that reality. I like the rest of the film so much that the performance of the young actor playing the son character is really fingers-on-chalkboard irritating.

 

P


  • 0

#35 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:05 PM

It's all police, cooking, monkeys mating in the trees, dumbo reality shows, and River Monsters.


  • 0

#36 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:11 PM

So far I've only seen the bluray on my computer, and not my larger 70" TV which I've yet to unpack until I get new carpeting put in.  But from what I've seen everything looks okay.  I don't notice any scale discrepancies.  

 

There's one shot that uses traditional animation in a real ham-fisted way, and that's the SFX shot where one of the bad guys during the green room show down gets shot into the zero atmosphere of Io (Jupiter's moon).  There they used traditional animation to show the guy's body breaking apart, which, compared to the other effects in the film, looks kind of hokey.  

 

The shuttle landing uses traditional smoke effects for the thrusters.  There they might have helped themselves by spending some money on animation for the engine exhaust, but otherwise it looks okay to me.  


  • 0

#37 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:29 PM

I still think the opening sequence of Star Wars (1977) is one of the best ever in any 'space ship' shot. Pure optical photography of a real model, entirely made by hand (shot by John Dykstra, a genius). Beautifully lit, too. I think old fashioned model photography in sci-fi is fine for feature movies. Yes, you can usually tell it's fake but it just looks so fascinating if it's been done really well. I'm a bit over CGI spaceship shots. They look 'perfect' but they are somehow often a bit ho-hum on the entertainment scale, at least to my eye.


  • 0

#38 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:44 PM

I still think the opening sequence of Star Wars (1977) is one of the best ever in any 'space ship' shot. Pure optical photography of a real model, entirely made by hand (shot by John Dykstra, a genius). Beautifully lit, too. I think old fashioned model photography in sci-fi is fine for feature movies. Yes, you can usually tell it's fake but it just looks so fascinating if it's been done really well. I'm a bit over CGI spaceship shots. They look 'perfect' but they are somehow often a bit ho-hum on the entertainment scale, at least to my eye.

Agree with you on most of this, but really Richard Edlund is the guy who did the most to make this shot happen, from producing a proof-of-concept to determining the lens chosen. A couple of the modelmakers spent several weeks detailing the underside of the 3ft star destroyer, and that is a big part of it as well. Dykstra's achievements on the film are enormous, but Edlund's contribution is massive too.

 

I've been messing with a screenplay about the formation of ILM, based on my old CINEFEX article (along with about 15,000 words that got cut from the article), for a VERY long time now, and figuring out the specifics of who did what and when plays havoc with screenwriting, because it is like a push-me/pull-you in terms of reality vs. three-act structure.

 

I used to describe the script, A LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY WITHOUT CGI ... (aka A LONG TIME AGO IN A VAN NUYS WAREHOUSE ... ) as RKO 281 meets BARBARIANS AT THE GATE by way of GROWING UP BRADY, but to be fair, it is nowhere near as compelling as BARBARIANS, which is why I keep fussing with it. The material is often compelling, and there are a few tidbits of history that got left out of the official version (still can't get a response from the guy who wrote THE MAKING OF STAR WARS about one particularly odd omission.)

 

One of the toughest parts is writing it so that you don't wind up with trademarked visual elements creeping into shots, since that would make it a huge signoff for Lucas and/or Disney. My conceit is that a director could shoot a lot of this stuff from the perspective of the miniatures being photographed, so you see the crew and the Dykstraflex rather than the spaceships ... after all, everybody already knows what the vessels look like ... and by shooting the pyro models obliquely, I'm making it more about people ducking the flying debris than the shot itself.


  • 0

#39 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:04 PM

That sounds an interesting idea! I think I'd go more with a "based on" concept than pure history, myself. One of the fetching things about it could be faithfully capturing that rather fun feel of the 70s that I, so far, haven't seen perfectly captured yet. Down to greenish glass bottles of coke, bottle cap remover on the wall outside the milk bar door (well, my local milk bar had that, anyway), stripy t shirts too tight, flares, long hair, period-era McDonalds, 70s cars, Suzie Quatro, Abba, Sweet, and AC DC.

 

Correction: Abba might be period-incorrect. Maybe they were slightly later.


Edited by Jon O'Brien, 06 November 2017 - 09:06 PM.

  • 0

#40 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:31 PM

Star Wars; the opening shot where both models are in focus really sells the enormity of the two space craft.  

 

How do you get that kind of a shot?  How do you keep everything in focus as it moves away from the camera?


  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Opal

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Visual Products