I like how this video highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of Abrams. If anything, it shows that Abrams is aware of his mistakes, and is still learning... which is a good thing.
Imaculata After I saw episode 7 my opinion was for Abrams to take heed from the narrative consolation near the end of one of the Star Trek movies. It was the one involving the Android humanoid being cloned. At the end the villain has a piece between himself and Captain Jean Luc Picard, who is conveniently strapped in prisoner bounds. It very much alludes to the storyline and popularity of the Star Wars moral compass phenomenon. Although the words may not fit well to the audience, I'm sure Abrams as a writer could find a way to tie the knot between the role of Kylo Ren (seemingly temporary villain) and Luke or Rey and Finn. Either way I love the characterization of everyone but still feel like the franchise has been short on storytelling.
I don't agree with a lot of your points and actually give points for a lot of the things JJ does, but gosh darnit ... you did a really good job, friend.
Quote from a new Empire magazine should relieve any doubts you may have about his camera work. "Before he started The Force Awakens, Abrams watched some movies. No, not those ones, Other ones. He looked at “the confidence” of John Ford Westerns. He took in the “unbelievable scene choreography and composition” of Kurosawa’s High and Low. And he studied “the powerful stillness” of Terrence Malick. “It’s not something I would normally have thought of coming to Star Wars,” he says. The spare visual style of Ford, Kurosawa and Malick points to a key mandate for Abrams’ approach to Episode VII: the distinctive less-is-more quality of the originals."
TFA definitely lacked of his usual kinetic camera movement, it's still there but there are a lot of wide and steady shot that I never expecting on JJ's direction
I really enjoyed this, man! Solid examples of strengths and weaknesses. Despite it all, I still believe Abrams to be the best choice to re-energize Star Wars. Breathe new fun and excitement into the franchise.
HelloGreedo I'm with you (big fan of your channel, too by the way). I actually really love Abrams, but I get why his detractors feel that way. Like Hello Film Guy said at the end, I think he's going to deliver big time. And I would bet a ton he's storyboarding for this one.
indeed. it was like a directing lesson (for making it better), but also a kind of tutorial of abrams cheesy overhollywooding techniques, which can be abused by amateurs like me. i like it :-)
This has to be one of the most informative video essays out there. Thanks. As an aspiring filmmaker, the insight into blocking and camerawork is incredibly helpful. When the time comes, I hope you consider doing a breakdown of Rian Johnson's work, who I think is a better visual storyteller than Abrams. I'm stoked to see that he's directing episode VIII and writing both of the sequels.
houseofflowers31 I'm glad you liked it and found it helpful. Rian Johnson is pretty stellar. I look forward to what those beyond George Lucas can do with such a massive universe.
Well thought out analysis using numerous clips from Abrams previous films to illustrate and reinforce the film & editing techniques we're likely to see in the upcoming Star Wars movie. Could and should be used as a teaching tool for aspiring film makers. Good on ya, mate!
Damn, this one flew under my radar! Glad you're recovering and I have to say you nailed it here! I always felt he loves Spielberg but couldn't reach him, and you crystalized all the reasons, specially the fast cuts with not enough time to focus and enjoy the frame, plus the improvisation with the camera. I would love to know more about his plot devices, though! Get well and I'll be awaiting your return!
+Ivan José Hurtado Barón I think he is very influenced by Spielberg. And that's as good of an influence as any. But I'm not sure if he UNDERSTANDS exactly why and how Spielberg's style works. He uses that style and aesthetic sometimes, but I think he uses it for style rather than for storytelling, whereas Spielberg uses it exclusively for storytelling purposes and not for making it look cool. Spielberg isn't perfect, but he understands that sometimes, the simple and conventional shots work best.
Wow ill never look at JJ the same way now. I had no idea how intricate filmmaking was. Thanks for this, you've got my subscription. You should do one for ZACK SNYDER!
I actually feel like he improved on a lot of the mistakes noticed in this video with TFA. Less camera shakes, longer shots, less visual bullshit in the way, etc.
Dan Fox That'd be really great ! Especially since most reviews I see of TFA don't go deeper than ''this was fun'' or ''it's a pathetic remake''. Do you think they'll keep the aspect ratio of the IMAX sequences. I knew something felt weird about them when I saw them 2.35:1 in the theater but never realized the were blatantly cropped in post.
Yeah that's I'm really hoping to find out too, because most people saw this film in 2.35:1 so all the IMAX shots are cropped really awkwardly. That was apparently something that Sony/Paramount didn't care about when they put Star Trek Into Darkness onto Blu-ray/dvd - which is something I'd like to clear up about this video in the post-mortem as well since that's an error on my part.
You have a knack for film analysis, great stuff! The humour was funny too (Jar Jar Arbrams lolol). Would love to see you tackle other directors too. :)
This was amazing! totally agree with every point. You should have mentioned that Brad Bird's films are heavy on storyboards too, planning never hurts. Abrams has a lot of weird, supposed eye candy that makes nothing but get in the middle of clear storytelling. Clarity should be prioritized above any other aspect of visual storytelling. This was a great analysis Dan! keep on doing what you are doing!
+Federico Etchegaray Cheers Federico! Qualms about Abrams filmmaking aside - I'm looking forward to seeing The Force Awakens in the coming week. It should be good!
I think JJ did a great job with TFA. He restrained himself, thus showing his strengths (blocking in long shots, color contrast) while his weaknesses (such as excessively dense shots) are downplayed.
it's not that close-ups in cars don't work or should be shot differently. It's that Abrams has used the same cinematic grammar for a throwaway character moment that's also given to very, very important cinematic moments - like when Philip Seymour Hoffman threatens to murder Tom Cruise's wife. It's like playing your best hand while your opponent is still getting a feel for things.
Ok I get you. You could shoot this in a wide shot from behind the car (or in the back seat) with the two characters silhouetted by the lights of the city and the skyscraper Tom Cruise is infiltrating in the in front of them. Then their body language would have to dictate the emotional beats of the scene and you could remain entirely within that one shot while that conversation happens and you see Tom Cruise blow open the windows of the skyscraper. That's a really specific example that relates to this film though. Say, this conversation were to take place in a car outside of the context of a Mission Impossible heist. Say it's a couple of friends worried about someone and their driving home. You could still shoot this in the previously mentioned manner but you'd have to choreograph and stage the driving so that the car would experience an appropriate beat when the conversation hits that 'teach me' beat at the end of the conversation. Does that make sense? I could list some other examples but if you want a really great film that has plenty of differently filmed ways that show two people in a car having different types of conversations - check out Michael Mann's 'Collateral' if you haven't already seen it.
I'm really enjoying the videos, I always learn something I can incorporate into my own work. May I make a request for you to do this for the major filmmakers working today? Like Spielberg, Scott, Innurittu and such? Your humor and breakdowns would make those very enjoyable. Keep up the good work!
You mention some stuff that most certainly will be welcomed by those who are unfamiliar with JJ's work or with certain elements of cinematic language as a whole, so nice job on that front. That said, I don't agree with some things you said, especially your take on the kids' scene from Super 8 (starting at 9:57) being "half baked". That scene is about how Charles is focused and consumed by bringing his movie to life while Joe is almost bursting with joy because he's realizing he'll finally have an excuse to interact with his crush. They are on two different "head-spaces", thinking about different matters. The way it was shot and edited enhances the subtle feeling of Joe having to keep up with his friend, and that shot where we can only see half of Joe's body while Charles is kneeling clearly expresses that Joe's "head" is somewhere else - which is immediately paid off by the following shot where Joe's head seems to be literally floating while still thinking and talking about Alice. Then Charles gets up and enters the same head-space/shot as Joe, finally addressing Joe's topic, syncing the conversation. After that, they both briefly mention the movie one more time before the scene ends with Charles leaving Joe behind, alone, in his own world still thinking about Alice, with a smile on his face. So I don't think there was any missed opportunity there nor that it would've been improved by blocking it the way you suggest - it would just convey a different story by means of a different interaction between characters.
lightandforms All of this could still be achieved with those blocking adjustments. Instead of cutting away to an isolated shot of Joe's face, the blocking does that by having one of them move out of that frame vertically. These are adjustments that are so small they'd also save time and money because they'd eliminate additional setups. I don't think either of us will convince each other that the other is right, but at the very at least, I feel that scene is a fair representation of his blocking. If you look across his filmography, he tends to rely on more coverage over detailed character movement and blocking. And for me, Super 8 was way overshot. Especially for a Spielberg tribute film.
lightandforms Also, check out my first video for more on blocking re: Super 8. There's almost more detail on that in there regarding Abrams blocking then there is in this video.
Hello Film Guy For “one of them [to] move outside of that frame” they’d have to be in the same shot to begin with, and that would be at odds with the dramatic subtext of the scene, which is what I tried to call attention to in my previous comment. Could he have staged the whole thing to accommodate a moving master? Easily. Would it still eloquently articulate Joe’s state of mind? Hardly, given the nature of said approach and what it does for character’s relationships. Having the scene be constructed out of separate shots also makes it that more funny (and justifiably so) because you don’t have to render the beat change on screen from when Joe is trying to talk about the movie to when he stands beside the bed, fully thinking about Alice - you just cut from one beat to the other. My point is that this scene in particular isn’t a good example of what you were trying to get across. It’s true that JJ tends to overshoot stuff, yes (which, along with the amount of CUs he deploys, is probably residual thinking from his TV days), but this scene is not an example of it, as far as its intentions are concerned. To reiterate, it would be just as valid, not *_“right”_*, if it had been shot the other way, but the result would have a different dramatic color to it. I had already seen your first video prior to commenting on this one. In that video as well as in your reply to my comment, you imply that “elimination of setups” (i.e. economy) should be the goal of every director and cinematographer. While I personally subscribe to it and my sensibility pushes me in that direction when I’m shooting, in an essay I feel you shouldn’t disregard different, equally as valid ways of seeing and experiencing the world that can only be articulated by an array of setups (e.g. Tony Scott, out of the top of my head) - even if just for a brief moment. As for the “Spielberg tribute” side of things, I think that applies to the expected world, characters and character dynamics from such a tribute - and they’re there, center stage. Technically, I think JJ intended to do the movie as himself, broadly referencing Spielberg’s cinematic language - not aping his style.
lightandforms I wrote up a longer reply to this, but it basically boiled down to everything I've already said. It was basically one long disagreement. It is totally possible to keep all the dramatic subtext and enhance it with only slight changes to the blocking. Studios like Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios do this every single day, dozens of times per shot and absolutely nail it. I'm just gonna have to disagree with you. Another thing I do want to add is that I don't consider what I've said as disregarding a different style of portraying things. It was more a comment on the inconsistency of his blocking than an invalidation of all other methods. Still, it appears to have come across that way, which was not my intention. I'll be trying to avoid repeating that mistake in the future. Unfortunately my rush to get this out has let it out with a bunch of flaws like that. Speaking of rushing - I totally agree with you on the 'Spielberg tribute'. I actually had the same thought typing that reply but didnt get the time to type it up as I had to go for a post-op thing.
Revisited this essay after seeing Rise of Skywalker. While I love the falcon chase on Jakku in 7, you're points about the chaotic editing and weird momentum shifts are *very* salient criticisms of his most recent work as well.
This was a super well made video, and really does say everything I've felt about Abrams movies more beautifully than I ever could. I am very excited for the new movies, but the negatives you touched on here, are what I've been trying to express to friends and family about what I'm worried about for the new films. My biggest worry is that it will be a film with too much clutter, too many hyperactive ADD driven action scenes that necessitate having to pause and rewind to tell what the hell is going on. That said, despite the shortcomings of the Star Trek film, it does have on of my favourite openings in a film of all time, and the coloring in that film was incredible. Definitely subbed and can't wait for more vids, I'ma have to go take a look at your older videos, now :)
+MechanicalMooCow Thanks mate! Glad it was a helpful video. There are a few people who want a Zach Snyder one so I might do that after the next video, sometime in the new year.
Great video essay. As a fan of Abrams' "Alias", I also like to point out that I notice he likes the colour red. The red matter from 'Star Trek' looks similar with something from the "Alias" TV show. A planet of red trees was featured in 'ST in to Darkness'. Red lighting are featured on 'M:I3' and his Star Trek films. Even from the Force Awakens trailer, you see a trooper with red stripes.
Re: the Super 8 shot under the bed was probably broken up to allow for better performances. Long takes can be very difficult to get real performances out of since it requires so much blocking and/or rehearsal. One of the best parts of Super 8 is the performances by the kids and I'd sacrifice some opportunity for composition in order to get the performances he did. There are always quirks that can't be seen by a viewer that might have impeded a performance and might require more coverage. From a cushy objective viewpoint, I still agree with you that the scene could have been improved.
Evan Petkau While that's a completely valid point, I would counter that argument with a film that heavily inspired Super 8 and featured even younger kids giving even better performances under longer takes - 'E.T. the Extra Terrestrial'. But your argument is definitely one I wish I had crammed into that shot. One of the downsides of talking over shots as you are showing them, is that time isn't always on your side. I haven't completely mastered the art of addressing every possible argument as quickly as possible in order to be as fair as possible. Hopefully I'll get there. Cheers
It was a great video though. I admire your ability to pick up on all the composition. You're right ET and Close Encounters have such great child acting within long takes.
Now that The Force Awakens is out, I'd love a breakdown of the film and how it matches up with Abrams previous style, and does or doesn't jive with Lucas's visual style from both Original and Prequel Trilogies.
Well he is getting better fast. Star wars for me is his best directed film by far. And he does some great stuff there with the camera and lightning. You should a video about it !
I love JJ Abrams and I have huge respect for him. And mostly I tend to learn from an older generation of Film-makers rather than the new generation. I do think he'll bring new life to Star Wars. However I do agree some technical weaknesses in his film-making that I do think he can actually learn from. Judging from his commentaries he does seem to be a hint of bias in his words when he explains "too many lens flares". A good video BTW on the do's and don't's of film-making.
+alexfryerpro1993 He is rather acutely aware of his own weaknesses. That's something really fascinating, because it's particularly rare at this level of Hollywood filmmaking. It's refreshing to hear that from a director of 190 million dollar picture. It'll be interesting to see if he improves upon his own work given his awareness.
Correct me if i am wrong ,but I need to say that in my opinion ,expacially in action secenes, sometimes the scene needs to be confusing and thats what jj abrams does
Hey I love this video but I had a question. At 14:16 what's the mistake? From where I see it, Kirk's eyes follow where the body does and watches the body fall off the platform. Then he turns his head back up at the platform. Why is this bad composition? I'm curious, because I'll be going to film school in a year and a half and I want to know at least a bit about cinematography before I go in. I love this channel! Keep the vids comin' sir!
+Griffin Watson I think he's referring to a bad jump cut. If you notice, the next shot, the close-up, is from the same angle, just closer to the subject. If I remember right, this is considered a jump cut, and is usually considered to be bad, because it's not providing anything new, but is cutting nevertheless. I might be wrong.
Lens Flare Tastic - I really enjoyed this, such a good video... I have Charlie at RUclips London to thank for sending me your way, really engaging - thanks! adding you to my growing Star Wars playlist....
This was an incredibly incisive video. I was always bothered by some elements of Abrams filmmaking such as lense flares, excessive close-ups and shaky camera-work but you pointed out so much more. Great stuff, hope to see more.
How interesting! Hopefully you'll watch Looper and Breaking Bad's 'Fly' and 'Ozymandias' and then make a breakdown video of Rian Johnson's filming skills before Episode VIII comes out!
I could make a video pointing out the evolution of his work, but I don't think I'd be able to find any errors in his work that are as glaring as some of Abrams. Abrams came across from writing so the bad habits newer directors have weren't ironed out yet. But PTA was a wunderkind, once in a generation type. I don't think I could find many errors in his directorial work if I looked. Or really just any errors period. I mean, his early films felt a lot like he was just mimicing greater directors rather than developing his own style, but who doesn't do that? That's about all i can think of
well i like most of his films, this is like the Lego Movie debate, do you follow the instructions that came in the box or make something up. You do both, first you follow intent of the instructions, than you expand on it, if you want.
I don't know about anyone else, but from a visual stand point, I think Abrams did a pretty bang up job on The Force Awakens. He toned down his bad habits and really let his good techniques shine. In fact, I might even say it's the best looking Star Wars movie to date.
BarronBrothersFilms I agree with you on his bad habits being reigned in. It was his most focussed film in terms of blocking and camera movement. But Empire is far and away my favourite looking Star Wars film.
Star Trek was a great piece of visceral cinema. Into Darkness was just a blur to me, I couldn't appreciate it due to it's over production and felt the hectic cuts and eratic camera work was there to cover up an underwhelming story. I feel JJ's presence is felt a little too much at times in his films, he just needs to reign it in a little. Saying that I'm confident in Star Wars TFA, it's looking great already. Just not so many crash zooms in this one please JJ!
+semih aras I'm on it Semih! I just found the time to finish recording a video tonight, so I should have one up... fingers crossed but hopefully in the next week. Fingers crossed!
I'm waiting :) By the way, are you going to a film school? And can you recommend any source about filmmaking? I keep watching youtube videos, but they are not enough I want to know more about directing.
As amusing as this post is, we need to remember that it is a very idiosyncratic take on cinematic technique. Dan's take on certain aspects of filmmaking such as 'centering the action in the frame' and the fact that Abrams doesn't feel the need to rely on the creative crutch that is the storyboard are funny in the sense that there are many reasons why such notions are best silly, and in most instances redundant. Composing a shot so that the action is in the center of the frame can be highly unimaginative - especially when shooting in (Abrams' prefrerred) 2.40 aspect ratio - check out anything John Sturges has done - that guy used the scope frame highly creatively, as did John McTiernan on movies like Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October. By the way, McTiernan is very anti-storyboard and yet those two movies, in particular, worked exceedingly well without them. Mostly, a good shot-list is all a good filmmaker needs - storyboards are only really needed for action/effects scenes. Boards cannot really convey camera movement and use of lenses, depth-of-field, or lack of it, etc...
+Tok Ali Thanks for watching Tok Ali! I agree with you to some degree, but I think it's because I haven't been as clear as I could be in the video - center-framing can be dull, but I believe it's fundamental to coherent action filmmaking when relying on fast editing and kinetic pacing during an action sequence. I'm not arguing that action should ALWAYS be center-framed - just fast-paced action scenes. I'd have to watch Die-Hard again but I feel pretty comfortable saying that in moments of fast-paced/edited action scenes, McTiernan falls more in line with Miller's style of center-framing the action than JJ Abrams more stylistic and haphazard approach. Old-school directors care more about clarity and space than the more new-school Chaos-Cinema era directors that are busy trying to mimic Paul Greengrass. (Also The Hunt For Red October isn't the best example for high-octane action cinema comparisons. A John Clancy espionage pot-boiler, who's main action sequences are VFX submarines save for a single gunfight in really confined conditions. Those submarine battles at least were definitely boarded.) Though that last point about storyboards being unable to convey camera movement, depth of field, lensing - I totally and utterly disagree. I've seen so many storyboards that do those exact things - that's almost the entire point of them really. Just having the ability to visualize the blocking alone is a massive boon.
a lot of what is being criticized is part of the intention of the scene, especially with the star trek into darkness scenes. The attack on star command is while somewhat unclear a purposeful choice to show how devastating the attack is. i love that scene because it highlights after all of his mistakes why we need captain Kirk and why he is worthy of being a captain. there are reasons for everything and not every movie needs to be shot a specific way. Shaky cam isn't a negative simply because you can't see whats going on. Shots shouldn't always be perfect just to showcase the stunt (MI3.) there are problems with shaky cam but i don't think JJ falls into that. there are reasons for it. Almost every beat is clear. Also editing isn't a negative its a useful tool that allows moments to be connected. not everything needs to be the perfrect dolly shot that shows every action. it all depends on the scene and the film. BTW I love these videos, i just think that the problem with modern action films isn't that they aren't steady enough.
+Jesse Mendelsohn Thanks Jesse! I'm glad you like the videos. I say we take our disagreements, use them to get angry at each other and punch each other until one of us loses teeth. Deal?
I personally don't believe Abrahms uses the whole frame in action sequences. Maybe the large center-portion, but his background never has too much going on besides a setting. This leaves large corners of the frame always "empty". But that's just me
+i_am Dropbear I'm constantly going back and forth between doing a series of director videos like this, or just leaving this as a one-off and doing a post-mortem to this video once the blu-rays out. Either way, the post-mortem will happen and that point you raise is one thing I'll follow-up as well.
TFA was good but it still had some of Abrams' signature flaws. He seems to be less of an "auteur" director than Gareth Edwards, who's directing Rogue One. It's be cool if you could do a video on Gareth Edwards. It seems like his directing style is more classical compared to Abrams' and more careful. Most of his camera moves and visuals are calculated and meticulous if judging by Godzilla and the Rogue One trailer.
As much as I understand what you are saying, I can't relate to it. I've never had a probably following the action of his films, or felt disturbed at a close-up, or sick at any shaky cam.
Hello Film Guy It's not always about getting sick or something. Shakey cam is often just an excuse for cheap choreography.Watch the recent bond movies for example. Everything is shaking on so close to the action that you sometimes can't even see who gets punched in the face and who is punching. Now watch Man of Tai Chi or John Wick. You can clearly see everything but this doesn't make it any less action-packed. On the contrary, you can appreciate much more how much work has been put into such a fine crafted action sequence
Hitchslapped I've never had a problem to see who is fighting who in any fight scene. If you are invested into the film, you are invested into the film, and you will be involved in the action. Shaky cam can be lazy, but is turning more stereotypically called 'lazy' whenever it is used anywhere. A scene can still be thrilling with it, but a more obviously choreographed one is just breath-taking.
Sums up the main reasons why I think Star Wars Force Awekens sucks, I hated the editing (advertising) pace, framing, orgy of coincidences plot and so on Subscribed to your channel, keep'em coming!
+Francesco Lisboa I usually hate Abrahams style of editing, but i genuinely loved TFA because of the direction rather than the plot. Thought it was extremely well paced, action was exciting instead of his usual frantic action, pacing was quick but gave certain scenes room to breath. Was very pleased with direction for TFA.
+Tom C I still think the editing was too quick and didn't like that excess of jump scares in the background to rush adrenaline in the audience (e.g. octupos like creatures in Han Solo ship). However I admit that JJ improved in this one, but I believe this has to do a lot with fact the film is produced by Kathleen Kennedy, look at her IMDB profile, she is basically responsible for the whole western movie pop culture foundation , from "Back to The Future", "Jurassic Park", "The Goonies"... she is involved in all the canons bro!!!
I agree camera shake is generally a cheap effect, and I agree with some other points in this, but screw the rules! Seriously, do you want to just see the same few styles all the time? I like the creative experimental choices JJ made in films like star trek, like where he didn't storyboard some of the action scenes. The way it ended up was a cool unique scene that I hadn't scene anywhere before with all those cool effects and camera angles. It was certainly disorienting, but THAT'S THE POINT! It was meant to portray that. Battles are hectic and crazy and this one captured that by doing exactly what it did. It was a scene that stuck in my memory because it took me somewhere I had never been before. However I still do enjoy other styles for the same type of scene. There's no real rules that determine what style is good and bad as long as it's done well, whatever it is. I believe people should be doing their own style and not trying to fit into someone else's mold all the time just because that's what people like this guy say is "good cinema". I get why the "rules" are there, but appreciate when they're broken, don't be a prison guard.
+Just3Boyzz You realize the counter-point to that argument is Mad Max: Fury Road right? It's literally the same kind of hectic fast-paced and energetic style but with forethought and planning put into every camera placement and cut.
+Just3Boyzz disclaimer: I really do appreciate many of the rules, guidelines and techniques that are commonly practiced in cinema. But there just comes a point where we're missing how enjoyable and subconsciously fresh something more random or out-of-the-box is, when we're thinking about how it would make more sense to do this or that. And I appreciate this video for helping us become more aware of techniques and reasons for the techniques. It just bugs me when people treat creative choices like they're right or wrong.
Just3Boyzz Fair enough - and thanks for watching it by the way, I do really appreciate it. I'm usually not so blunt in my replies, and for that I apologize. You just happened upon an argument I've never taken any liking to whatsoever. The argument that suggests if there is a reason for something, it is automatically a smart choice. In this case, the suggestion that Abrams winging it is something that's representative of what fights are like, so therefore that negates all of the flaws pointed out in the video - I get where the argument comes from, but I've seen so many films attempt something experimental like that, that are so much more successful at their attempts than what Abrams does in that sequence. I also want to point out that everything Abrams does in those fights there, he tones down in The Force Awakens. Less cuts, cleaner shots, better framing even on the sequences shot in IMAX format. He's keenly aware of his own flaws.
This pretty much sums up why I didn't like Force Awakens' cinematography. I don't like his style and it stands in stark contrast to the other six movies. Better luck next time Disney, with a new director.
I like how this video highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of Abrams. If anything, it shows that Abrams is aware of his mistakes, and is still learning... which is a good thing.
Imaculata After I saw episode 7 my opinion was for Abrams to take heed from the narrative consolation near the end of one of the Star Trek movies. It was the one involving the Android humanoid being cloned. At the end the villain has a piece between himself and Captain Jean Luc Picard, who is conveniently strapped in prisoner bounds. It very much alludes to the storyline and popularity of the Star Wars moral compass phenomenon. Although the words may not fit well to the audience, I'm sure Abrams as a writer could find a way to tie the knot between the role of Kylo Ren (seemingly temporary villain) and Luke or Rey and Finn. Either way I love the characterization of everyone but still feel like the franchise has been short on storytelling.
I don't agree with a lot of your points and actually give points for a lot of the things JJ does, but gosh darnit ... you did a really good job, friend.
Antoine Bandele Thanks Antoine. Much appreciated.
I for one love those crash zooms, but I can understand why other people don't.
Quote from a new Empire magazine should relieve any doubts you may have about his camera work.
"Before he started The Force Awakens, Abrams watched some movies. No, not those ones, Other ones. He looked at “the confidence” of John Ford Westerns. He took in the “unbelievable scene choreography and composition” of Kurosawa’s High and Low. And he studied “the powerful stillness” of Terrence Malick. “It’s not something I would normally have thought of coming to Star Wars,” he says. The spare visual style of Ford, Kurosawa and Malick points to a key mandate for Abrams’ approach to Episode VII: the distinctive less-is-more quality of the originals."
+Brett Smith That bodes well.
+Brett Smith Sounds good, but everything shown in the trailers says otherwise.
TFA definitely lacked of his usual kinetic camera movement, it's still there but there are a lot of wide and steady shot that I never expecting on JJ's direction
I really enjoyed this, man! Solid examples of strengths and weaknesses. Despite it all, I still believe Abrams to be the best choice to re-energize Star Wars. Breathe new fun and excitement into the franchise.
HelloGreedo without a doubt!
HelloGreedo I'm with you (big fan of your channel, too by the way). I actually really love Abrams, but I get why his detractors feel that way. Like Hello Film Guy said at the end, I think he's going to deliver big time. And I would bet a ton he's storyboarding for this one.
Amen to that sir
Frankly marvelous! Thanks for such an in depth look. It was like a class at directing.
+Xavier Peypoch (The Tiger Griffon) Thanks Xavier!
indeed. it was like a directing lesson (for making it better), but also a kind of tutorial of abrams cheesy overhollywooding techniques, which can be abused by amateurs like me. i like it :-)
Informative and entertaining. Well done and I hope to see more!
bioarv111 Thanks mate! It might take a while, as I've got to recover from surgery, but it'll happen.
I love this so much! Everything you talk about is so interesting, and it's hilarious as well :P
One of the better videos of this nature! Great work, keep it up!
Do a video for Rian Johnson who's directing Episodes VIII and IX (:
+MegaDJSlickRick Yes, please! When it's time for that, in about a year.
+MegaDJSlickRick Only directing VIII
+Sambe Ksist Great! lol now they changed the director to Colin
ahahahahaha this comment dated well.
This has to be one of the most informative video essays out there. Thanks. As an aspiring filmmaker, the insight into blocking and camerawork is incredibly helpful. When the time comes, I hope you consider doing a breakdown of Rian Johnson's work, who I think is a better visual storyteller than Abrams. I'm stoked to see that he's directing episode VIII and writing both of the sequels.
houseofflowers31 I'm glad you liked it and found it helpful. Rian Johnson is pretty stellar. I look forward to what those beyond George Lucas can do with such a massive universe.
+Hello Film Guy Although I want to add that Lucas has done amazing things with the 6 films he's made.
Well thought out analysis using numerous clips from Abrams previous films to illustrate and reinforce the film & editing techniques we're likely to see in the upcoming Star Wars movie.
Could and should be used as a teaching tool for aspiring film makers.
Good on ya, mate!
Dan the man sure knows how to make a great video essay. You have a great eye my friend, thanks for sharing.
I am a big JJ fan and this is a great video. You should do more of these with other directors.
Very, very good video. Clearly a ton of work went into this, and it can get easier and better from here.
Damn, this one flew under my radar! Glad you're recovering and I have to say you nailed it here! I always felt he loves Spielberg but couldn't reach him, and you crystalized all the reasons, specially the fast cuts with not enough time to focus and enjoy the frame, plus the improvisation with the camera. I would love to know more about his plot devices, though! Get well and I'll be awaiting your return!
+Ivan José Hurtado Barón I think he is very influenced by Spielberg. And that's as good of an influence as any. But I'm not sure if he UNDERSTANDS exactly why and how Spielberg's style works. He uses that style and aesthetic sometimes, but I think he uses it for style rather than for storytelling, whereas Spielberg uses it exclusively for storytelling purposes and not for making it look cool. Spielberg isn't perfect, but he understands that sometimes, the simple and conventional shots work best.
Wow ill never look at JJ the same way now. I had no idea how intricate filmmaking was. Thanks for this, you've got my subscription. You should do one for ZACK SNYDER!
Moses King yeah, he should
Victor Knievel you're very ignorant and stupid
+Victor Knievel True, I'm not a big fan of his shots... I mean, he loves awesome shots, and that's it, and his taste on color correction, omg
+Victor Knievel 100% got it mate
this is fantastic! I've been saying this stuff for the longest time but no one listened!
I'm glad you liked it!
this is great, please dont stop doin these! Tony from Every frame a painting should be worried :)
"...A technique that Michael Bay should be arrested for." HILARIOUS!
Good stuff. There were a couple more tidbits in the behind the scenes Comic Con video as well showing some of the style.
I actually feel like he improved on a lot of the mistakes noticed in this video with TFA. Less camera shakes, longer shots, less visual bullshit in the way, etc.
+dav 2one Yeah I agree. I might do a post-mortem follow-up video on TFA once the blu-ray comes out.
Dan Fox That'd be really great ! Especially since most reviews I see of TFA don't go deeper than ''this was fun'' or ''it's a pathetic remake''. Do you think they'll keep the aspect ratio of the IMAX sequences. I knew something felt weird about them when I saw them 2.35:1 in the theater but never realized the were blatantly cropped in post.
Yeah that's I'm really hoping to find out too, because most people saw this film in 2.35:1 so all the IMAX shots are cropped really awkwardly. That was apparently something that Sony/Paramount didn't care about when they put Star Trek Into Darkness onto Blu-ray/dvd - which is something I'd like to clear up about this video in the post-mortem as well since that's an error on my part.
Dan Fox Yeah I saw it in AVX which has a 16:9 aspect ratio and is standard 4k. And you did clear it up with the text in the video ahah.
Dude, this was AMAZING! Keep it up! Subscribed!
You have a knack for film analysis, great stuff! The humour was funny too (Jar Jar Arbrams lolol). Would love to see you tackle other directors too. :)
Thanks for this video. I was hoping to see someone make a video on this topic since Abrams was selected as director.
very good analysis my friend.
I just subscribed to your channel, keep it coming.
+JCK M M Cheers!
please keep doing more of these videos
This was amazing! totally agree with every point. You should have mentioned that Brad Bird's films are heavy on storyboards too, planning never hurts. Abrams has a lot of weird, supposed eye candy that makes nothing but get in the middle of clear storytelling. Clarity should be prioritized above any other aspect of visual storytelling. This was a great analysis Dan! keep on doing what you are doing!
+Federico Etchegaray Cheers Federico! Qualms about Abrams filmmaking aside - I'm looking forward to seeing The Force Awakens in the coming week. It should be good!
Frankly, Star Wars turned out to be the most non-JJ Abrams-ish film directed by JJ Abrams.
I think JJ did a great job with TFA. He restrained himself, thus showing his strengths (blocking in long shots, color contrast) while his weaknesses (such as excessively dense shots) are downplayed.
What is a different Methode for the cat talk scene in the car?
I mean, dialogue in a car is many times a close uo. Any suggestions?
it's not that close-ups in cars don't work or should be shot differently. It's that Abrams has used the same cinematic grammar for a throwaway character moment that's also given to very, very important cinematic moments - like when Philip Seymour Hoffman threatens to murder Tom Cruise's wife.
It's like playing your best hand while your opponent is still getting a feel for things.
Dan Fox I See what your Point is, But how Can you do it differently?
Just delete the Car Scene and shoot it in a Differenz Location?
Ok I get you. You could shoot this in a wide shot from behind the car (or in the back seat) with the two characters silhouetted by the lights of the city and the skyscraper Tom Cruise is infiltrating in the in front of them. Then their body language would have to dictate the emotional beats of the scene and you could remain entirely within that one shot while that conversation happens and you see Tom Cruise blow open the windows of the skyscraper.
That's a really specific example that relates to this film though. Say, this conversation were to take place in a car outside of the context of a Mission Impossible heist. Say it's a couple of friends worried about someone and their driving home.
You could still shoot this in the previously mentioned manner but you'd have to choreograph and stage the driving so that the car would experience an appropriate beat when the conversation hits that 'teach me' beat at the end of the conversation. Does that make sense?
I could list some other examples but if you want a really great film that has plenty of differently filmed ways that show two people in a car having different types of conversations - check out Michael Mann's 'Collateral' if you haven't already seen it.
Dan Fox thank you!!! Good tipps
This is informative thanks, I don't watch too many movies so I don't know Abrams style -- but I'm a huge SW fan
I'm really enjoying the videos, I always learn something I can incorporate into my own work. May I make a request for you to do this for the major filmmakers working today? Like Spielberg, Scott, Innurittu and such? Your humor and breakdowns would make those very enjoyable. Keep up the good work!
You mention some stuff that most certainly will be welcomed by those who are unfamiliar with JJ's work or with certain elements of cinematic language as a whole, so nice job on that front. That said, I don't agree with some things you said, especially your take on the kids' scene from Super 8 (starting at 9:57) being "half baked". That scene is about how Charles is focused and consumed by bringing his movie to life while Joe is almost bursting with joy because he's realizing he'll finally have an excuse to interact with his crush. They are on two different "head-spaces", thinking about different matters. The way it was shot and edited enhances the subtle feeling of Joe having to keep up with his friend, and that shot where we can only see half of Joe's body while Charles is kneeling clearly expresses that Joe's "head" is somewhere else - which is immediately paid off by the following shot where Joe's head seems to be literally floating while still thinking and talking about Alice. Then Charles gets up and enters the same head-space/shot as Joe, finally addressing Joe's topic, syncing the conversation. After that, they both briefly mention the movie one more time before the scene ends with Charles leaving Joe behind, alone, in his own world still thinking about Alice, with a smile on his face. So I don't think there was any missed opportunity there nor that it would've been improved by blocking it the way you suggest - it would just convey a different story by means of a different interaction between characters.
lightandforms All of this could still be achieved with those blocking adjustments. Instead of cutting away to an isolated shot of Joe's face, the blocking does that by having one of them move out of that frame vertically. These are adjustments that are so small they'd also save time and money because they'd eliminate additional setups. I don't think either of us will convince each other that the other is right, but at the very at least, I feel that scene is a fair representation of his blocking. If you look across his filmography, he tends to rely on more coverage over detailed character movement and blocking. And for me, Super 8 was way overshot. Especially for a Spielberg tribute film.
lightandforms Also, check out my first video for more on blocking re: Super 8. There's almost more detail on that in there regarding Abrams blocking then there is in this video.
Hello Film Guy For “one of them [to] move outside of that frame” they’d have to be in the same shot to begin with, and that would be at odds with the dramatic subtext of the scene, which is what I tried to call attention to in my previous comment. Could he have staged the whole thing to accommodate a moving master? Easily. Would it still eloquently articulate Joe’s state of mind? Hardly, given the nature of said approach and what it does for character’s relationships. Having the scene be constructed out of separate shots also makes it that more funny (and justifiably so) because you don’t have to render the beat change on screen from when Joe is trying to talk about the movie to when he stands beside the bed, fully thinking about Alice - you just cut from one beat to the other.
My point is that this scene in particular isn’t a good example of what you were trying to get across. It’s true that JJ tends to overshoot stuff, yes (which, along with the amount of CUs he deploys, is probably residual thinking from his TV days), but this scene is not an example of it, as far as its intentions are concerned. To reiterate, it would be just as valid, not *_“right”_*, if it had been shot the other way, but the result would have a different dramatic color to it.
I had already seen your first video prior to commenting on this one. In that video as well as in your reply to my comment, you imply that “elimination of setups” (i.e. economy) should be the goal of every director and cinematographer. While I personally subscribe to it and my sensibility pushes me in that direction when I’m shooting, in an essay I feel you shouldn’t disregard different, equally as valid ways of seeing and experiencing the world that can only be articulated by an array of setups (e.g. Tony Scott, out of the top of my head) - even if just for a brief moment.
As for the “Spielberg tribute” side of things, I think that applies to the expected world, characters and character dynamics from such a tribute - and they’re there, center stage. Technically, I think JJ intended to do the movie as himself, broadly referencing Spielberg’s cinematic language - not aping his style.
lightandforms I wrote up a longer reply to this, but it basically boiled down to everything I've already said. It was basically one long disagreement. It is totally possible to keep all the dramatic subtext and enhance it with only slight changes to the blocking. Studios like Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios do this every single day, dozens of times per shot and absolutely nail it. I'm just gonna have to disagree with you.
Another thing I do want to add is that I don't consider what I've said as disregarding a different style of portraying things. It was more a comment on the inconsistency of his blocking than an invalidation of all other methods. Still, it appears to have come across that way, which was not my intention. I'll be trying to avoid repeating that mistake in the future. Unfortunately my rush to get this out has let it out with a bunch of flaws like that.
Speaking of rushing - I totally agree with you on the 'Spielberg tribute'. I actually had the same thought typing that reply but didnt get the time to type it up as I had to go for a post-op thing.
14:05 - Why does he say he should've looked over his left shoulder over his right? Why would that have been better?
So that way he faces more to camera and you can see his face as he talks.
Great work, subscribed.
Revisited this essay after seeing Rise of Skywalker. While I love the falcon chase on Jakku in 7, you're points about the chaotic editing and weird momentum shifts are *very* salient criticisms of his most recent work as well.
This was a super well made video, and really does say everything I've felt about Abrams movies more beautifully than I ever could.
I am very excited for the new movies, but the negatives you touched on here, are what I've been trying to express to friends and family about what I'm worried about for the new films. My biggest worry is that it will be a film with too much clutter, too many hyperactive ADD driven action scenes that necessitate having to pause and rewind to tell what the hell is going on. That said, despite the shortcomings of the Star Trek film, it does have on of my favourite openings in a film of all time, and the coloring in that film was incredible.
Definitely subbed and can't wait for more vids, I'ma have to go take a look at your older videos, now :)
+MechanicalMooCow Thanks mate! Glad it was a helpful video. There are a few people who want a Zach Snyder one so I might do that after the next video, sometime in the new year.
+Dan Fox Count me in for that.
Great video essay.
As a fan of Abrams' "Alias", I also like to point out that I notice he likes the colour red.
The red matter from 'Star Trek' looks similar with something from the "Alias" TV show. A planet of red trees was featured in 'ST in to Darkness'. Red lighting are featured on 'M:I3' and his Star Trek films.
Even from the Force Awakens trailer, you see a trooper with red stripes.
+Arief Leuvenardi This is one of those things I can't stop seeing in Abrams work now. Great spotting.
+Dan Fox Doesn't really help that C-3P0 has a red arm now
Great work
Re: the Super 8 shot under the bed was probably broken up to allow for better performances. Long takes can be very difficult to get real performances out of since it requires so much blocking and/or rehearsal. One of the best parts of Super 8 is the performances by the kids and I'd sacrifice some opportunity for composition in order to get the performances he did. There are always quirks that can't be seen by a viewer that might have impeded a performance and might require more coverage. From a cushy objective viewpoint, I still agree with you that the scene could have been improved.
Evan Petkau While that's a completely valid point, I would counter that argument with a film that heavily inspired Super 8 and featured even younger kids giving even better performances under longer takes - 'E.T. the Extra Terrestrial'.
But your argument is definitely one I wish I had crammed into that shot. One of the downsides of talking over shots as you are showing them, is that time isn't always on your side. I haven't completely mastered the art of addressing every possible argument as quickly as possible in order to be as fair as possible. Hopefully I'll get there. Cheers
It was a great video though. I admire your ability to pick up on all the composition. You're right ET and Close Encounters have such great child acting within long takes.
Evan Petkau Cheers!
Now that The Force Awakens is out, I'd love a breakdown of the film and how it matches up with Abrams previous style, and does or doesn't jive with Lucas's visual style from both Original and Prequel Trilogies.
great stuff! keep them coming!
I couldnt find any post the force awakens comments.
Well he is getting better fast. Star wars for me is his best directed film by far. And he does some great stuff there with the camera and lightning. You should a video about it !
well he did grow up a star wars fan, so it was basically his dream film.
I love JJ Abrams and I have huge respect for him. And mostly I tend to learn from an older generation of Film-makers rather than the new generation. I do think he'll bring new life to Star Wars. However I do agree some technical weaknesses in his film-making that I do think he can actually learn from. Judging from his commentaries he does seem to be a hint of bias in his words when he explains "too many lens flares". A good video BTW on the do's and don't's of film-making.
+alexfryerpro1993 He is rather acutely aware of his own weaknesses. That's something really fascinating, because it's particularly rare at this level of Hollywood filmmaking. It's refreshing to hear that from a director of 190 million dollar picture. It'll be interesting to see if he improves upon his own work given his awareness.
Mate I love ur videos, when is the next one?
PLEASE KEEP MAKING MORE!
Awesome. I agree, if Abrams stuffs it all up it will suck for him because most people think he will make it good, like me.
Correct me if i am wrong ,but I need to say that in my opinion ,expacially in action secenes, sometimes the scene needs to be confusing and thats what jj abrams does
Hey I love this video but I had a question. At 14:16 what's the mistake? From where I see it, Kirk's eyes follow where the body does and watches the body fall off the platform. Then he turns his head back up at the platform. Why is this bad composition? I'm curious, because I'll be going to film school in a year and a half and I want to know at least a bit about cinematography before I go in. I love this channel! Keep the vids comin' sir!
+Griffin Watson I think he's referring to a bad jump cut. If you notice, the next shot, the close-up, is from the same angle, just closer to the subject. If I remember right, this is considered a jump cut, and is usually considered to be bad, because it's not providing anything new, but is cutting nevertheless. I might be wrong.
Lens Flare Tastic - I really enjoyed this, such a good video... I have Charlie at RUclips London to thank for sending me your way, really engaging - thanks! adding you to my growing Star Wars playlist....
This was an incredibly incisive video. I was always bothered by some elements of Abrams filmmaking such as lense flares, excessive close-ups and shaky camera-work but you pointed out so much more. Great stuff, hope to see more.
wow, excellent vid.
Jar Jar Abrams :) Good one...
How interesting! Hopefully you'll watch Looper and Breaking Bad's 'Fly' and 'Ozymandias' and then make a breakdown video of Rian Johnson's filming skills before Episode VIII comes out!
+collbackk Great idea!
+Dan Fox Brick, too.
How about doing a video like this about Paul Thomas Anderson?
I could make a video pointing out the evolution of his work, but I don't think I'd be able to find any errors in his work that are as glaring as some of Abrams. Abrams came across from writing so the bad habits newer directors have weren't ironed out yet. But PTA was a wunderkind, once in a generation type. I don't think I could find many errors in his directorial work if I looked. Or really just any errors period.
I mean, his early films felt a lot like he was just mimicing greater directors rather than developing his own style, but who doesn't do that? That's about all i can think of
In my opinion, he's going to be called Jar Jar Abrams forever
Alwaysbusking nah, it wasn't objectively thaaat bad.. it was pretty great actually..
Spot on mate. So many sparks that should not have any business in the movie.
12:31 What was the issue with this? I didn't comprehend
El Tapo i believe he's pointing out the unnecessary panning the camera around and over the shot and shoulder reverse shot reverse, I believe..
well i like most of his films, this is like the Lego Movie debate, do you follow the instructions that came in the box or make something up. You do both, first you follow intent of the instructions, than you expand on it, if you want.
Great essay. While I disagree with some of it, it was incredibly informative!
I don't know about anyone else, but from a visual stand point, I think Abrams did a pretty bang up job on The Force Awakens. He toned down his bad habits and really let his good techniques shine. In fact, I might even say it's the best looking Star Wars movie to date.
BarronBrothersFilms I agree with you on his bad habits being reigned in. It was his most focussed film in terms of blocking and camera movement. But Empire is far and away my favourite looking Star Wars film.
Great videos!!! keep it up
His direction makes me feel motion sick.
Star Trek was a great piece of visceral cinema. Into Darkness was just a blur to me, I couldn't appreciate it due to it's over production and felt the hectic cuts and eratic camera work was there to cover up an underwhelming story.
I feel JJ's presence is felt a little too much at times in his films, he just needs to reign it in a little. Saying that I'm confident in Star Wars TFA, it's looking great already. Just not so many crash zooms in this one please JJ!
Jar Jar Abrams :)
Not yet
Now come on, lad. We all know that Abrams is not very bright, but he tries the best he can manage with his limited abilities.
Nice video. Very educational to us the blind herd... Seriously, I feel that I learned a lot. Mainly that I would never be able to direct anything ;)
+jur rabi Thanks Jur. I'm glad it was educational and you learned a lot.
Why aren't you making more videos? I've just discovered your channel but dissapointed when I saw you have only 3 videos.
+semih aras I'm on it Semih! I just found the time to finish recording a video tonight, so I should have one up... fingers crossed but hopefully in the next week. Fingers crossed!
I'm waiting :) By the way, are you going to a film school? And can you recommend any source about filmmaking? I keep watching youtube videos, but they are not enough I want to know more about directing.
As amusing as this post is, we need to remember that it is a very idiosyncratic take on cinematic technique. Dan's take on certain aspects of filmmaking such as 'centering the action in the frame' and the fact that Abrams doesn't feel the need to rely on the creative crutch that is the storyboard are funny in the sense that there are many reasons why such notions are best silly, and in most instances redundant. Composing a shot so that the action is in the center of the frame can be highly unimaginative - especially when shooting in (Abrams' prefrerred) 2.40 aspect ratio - check out anything John Sturges has done - that guy used the scope frame highly creatively, as did John McTiernan on movies like Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October. By the way, McTiernan is very anti-storyboard and yet those two movies, in particular, worked exceedingly well without them. Mostly, a good shot-list is all a good filmmaker needs - storyboards are only really needed for action/effects scenes. Boards cannot really convey camera movement and use of lenses, depth-of-field, or lack of it, etc...
+Tok Ali Thanks for watching Tok Ali! I agree with you to some degree, but I think it's because I haven't been as clear as I could be in the video - center-framing can be dull, but I believe it's fundamental to coherent action filmmaking when relying on fast editing and kinetic pacing during an action sequence. I'm not arguing that action should ALWAYS be center-framed - just fast-paced action scenes.
I'd have to watch Die-Hard again but I feel pretty comfortable saying that in moments of fast-paced/edited action scenes, McTiernan falls more in line with Miller's style of center-framing the action than JJ Abrams more stylistic and haphazard approach. Old-school directors care more about clarity and space than the more new-school Chaos-Cinema era directors that are busy trying to mimic Paul Greengrass.
(Also The Hunt For Red October isn't the best example for high-octane action cinema comparisons. A John Clancy espionage pot-boiler, who's main action sequences are VFX submarines save for a single gunfight in really confined conditions. Those submarine battles at least were definitely boarded.)
Though that last point about storyboards being unable to convey camera movement, depth of field, lensing - I totally and utterly disagree. I've seen so many storyboards that do those exact things - that's almost the entire point of them really. Just having the ability to visualize the blocking alone is a massive boon.
This has been an interesting review of Jar Jar's camera technique. Jow he gets writers to make such terrible scripts is another story all together.
wow excellent !
Thanks mate!
The close-up addiction is pretty clearly a result of his TV background. This is not to excuse it, but simply to explain it.
Now you have seen the movie, I would like to know your opinion about JJ.
Can you do one about Rian Johnson?
Well now we know that his name is Jar Jar Abrams......
+pimeto Well I liked it pimeto so you're no longer invited to my JJ Abrams themed birthday party!
a lot of what is being criticized is part of the intention of the scene, especially with the star trek into darkness scenes. The attack on star command is while somewhat unclear a purposeful choice to show how devastating the attack is. i love that scene because it highlights after all of his mistakes why we need captain Kirk and why he is worthy of being a captain. there are reasons for everything and not every movie needs to be shot a specific way. Shaky cam isn't a negative simply because you can't see whats going on. Shots shouldn't always be perfect just to showcase the stunt (MI3.) there are problems with shaky cam but i don't think JJ falls into that. there are reasons for it. Almost every beat is clear. Also editing isn't a negative its a useful tool that allows moments to be connected. not everything needs to be the perfrect dolly shot that shows every action. it all depends on the scene and the film.
BTW I love these videos, i just think that the problem with modern action films isn't that they aren't steady enough.
+Jesse Mendelsohn Thanks Jesse! I'm glad you like the videos. I say we take our disagreements, use them to get angry at each other and punch each other until one of us loses teeth. Deal?
Do we call him Yar Yar Abrams now? If not, we definitely should.
@ 4:55. You know he didn't direct Superman Returns, right m8?
Thats from the pilot of Lost
awesome, thank you!
I personally don't believe Abrahms uses the whole frame in action sequences. Maybe the large center-portion, but his background never has too much going on besides a setting. This leaves large corners of the frame always "empty". But that's just me
+i_am Dropbear I'm constantly going back and forth between doing a series of director videos like this, or just leaving this as a one-off and doing a post-mortem to this video once the blu-rays out. Either way, the post-mortem will happen and that point you raise is one thing I'll follow-up as well.
Well, Brad Bird is a brilliant director, so there's that too
lol, super 8 looked nice, that is art.
Shitgodamn, Dan, I come for the critical analysis but I stay for the laughs.
Cheers!
subtitulos please!!! gracias.
Do one about Spielberg
TFA was good but it still had some of Abrams' signature flaws. He seems to be less of an "auteur" director than Gareth Edwards, who's directing Rogue One.
It's be cool if you could do a video on Gareth Edwards. It seems like his directing style is more classical compared to Abrams' and more careful. Most of his camera moves and visuals are calculated and meticulous if judging by Godzilla and the Rogue One trailer.
As much as I understand what you are saying, I can't relate to it.
I've never had a probably following the action of his films, or felt disturbed at a close-up, or sick at any shaky cam.
***** That's fair enough. I don't get sick at shaky cam, but I can totally understand how people do. That's why I included the argument.
Hello Film Guy It's not always about getting sick or something. Shakey cam is often just an excuse for cheap choreography.Watch the recent bond movies for example. Everything is shaking on so close to the action that you sometimes can't even see who gets punched in the face and who is punching. Now watch Man of Tai Chi or John Wick. You can clearly see everything but this doesn't make it any less action-packed. On the contrary, you can appreciate much more how much work has been put into such a fine crafted action sequence
Hitchslapped I've never had a problem to see who is fighting who in any fight scene. If you are invested into the film, you are invested into the film, and you will be involved in the action. Shaky cam can be lazy, but is turning more stereotypically called 'lazy' whenever it is used anywhere. A scene can still be thrilling with it, but a more obviously choreographed one is just breath-taking.
the snark is strong in this one
charlespennywhacker I rather regret how much snark there is.
Hello Film Guy Don't. It was the right amount of snark. No excuse for a director at that level not doing the basics.
Seinfeld.. I'm pretty sure it's Seinfeld. lmfao!
Sums up the main reasons why I think Star Wars Force Awekens sucks, I hated the editing (advertising) pace, framing, orgy of coincidences plot and so on
Subscribed to your channel, keep'em coming!
+Francesco Lisboa I usually hate Abrahams style of editing, but i genuinely loved TFA because of the direction rather than the plot. Thought it was extremely well paced, action was exciting instead of his usual frantic action, pacing was quick but gave certain scenes room to breath. Was very pleased with direction for TFA.
+Tom C I still think the editing was too quick and didn't like that excess of jump scares in the background to rush adrenaline in the audience (e.g. octupos like creatures in Han Solo ship). However I admit that JJ improved in this one, but I believe this has to do a lot with fact the film is produced by Kathleen Kennedy, look at her IMDB profile, she is basically responsible for the whole western movie pop culture foundation , from "Back to The Future", "Jurassic Park", "The Goonies"... she is involved in all the canons bro!!!
GREAT
jj admitded he did wrong with into darkness. i think he's going to have an entirely different approach for star wars.
I still say Ron Howard or Brad Bird would have been a better choice for Star Wars. He destroyed Star Trek.
I agree camera shake is generally a cheap effect, and I agree with some other points in this, but screw the rules! Seriously, do you want to just see the same few styles all the time? I like the creative experimental choices JJ made in films like star trek, like where he didn't storyboard some of the action scenes. The way it ended up was a cool unique scene that I hadn't scene anywhere before with all those cool effects and camera angles. It was certainly disorienting, but THAT'S THE POINT! It was meant to portray that. Battles are hectic and crazy and this one captured that by doing exactly what it did. It was a scene that stuck in my memory because it took me somewhere I had never been before. However I still do enjoy other styles for the same type of scene. There's no real rules that determine what style is good and bad as long as it's done well, whatever it is. I believe people should be doing their own style and not trying to fit into someone else's mold all the time just because that's what people like this guy say is "good cinema". I get why the "rules" are there, but appreciate when they're broken, don't be a prison guard.
+Just3Boyzz You realize the counter-point to that argument is Mad Max: Fury Road right? It's literally the same kind of hectic fast-paced and energetic style but with forethought and planning put into every camera placement and cut.
+Just3Boyzz disclaimer: I really do appreciate many of the rules, guidelines and techniques that are commonly practiced in cinema. But there just comes a point where we're missing how enjoyable and subconsciously fresh something more random or out-of-the-box is, when we're thinking about how it would make more sense to do this or that.
And I appreciate this video for helping us become more aware of techniques and reasons for the techniques. It just bugs me when people treat creative choices like they're right or wrong.
Just3Boyzz Fair enough - and thanks for watching it by the way, I do really appreciate it. I'm usually not so blunt in my replies, and for that I apologize. You just happened upon an argument I've never taken any liking to whatsoever. The argument that suggests if there is a reason for something, it is automatically a smart choice.
In this case, the suggestion that Abrams winging it is something that's representative of what fights are like, so therefore that negates all of the flaws pointed out in the video - I get where the argument comes from, but I've seen so many films attempt something experimental like that, that are so much more successful at their attempts than what Abrams does in that sequence.
I also want to point out that everything Abrams does in those fights there, he tones down in The Force Awakens. Less cuts, cleaner shots, better framing even on the sequences shot in IMAX format. He's keenly aware of his own flaws.
I'm almost afraid to read the comments lol
@Dan fox are you Aussie?
Yup!
Maaaaate!!!!
Maaaaaaaaaaate!!!!!
interesting video
This pretty much sums up why I didn't like Force Awakens' cinematography. I don't like his style and it stands in stark contrast to the other six movies.
Better luck next time Disney, with a new director.
No country for old men deserves your analysis or even some of Stanley Kubriks master pieces..please. : )
No Country For Old Men probably taught me more about screenwriting and filmmaking than film school ever could.