Star Wars Without John Williams?

When you think of the Star Wars movies, it's hard to not think of the music in some way or another.  It's easily one of the most iconic components of the Saga and is instantly recognizable, even to people who wouldn't consider themselves fans of Star Wars. The music of John Williams is so crucial to the Saga as a whole that it really helped in shaping its identity. In fact, I would argue that Star Wars wouldn't have been as much of a success without Williams' music. His music is the glue that brings it all together. It's just so hard to imagine any Star Wars movie without it

That's why some fans are a little skeptical of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which will be the first time a live action Star Wars movie is not scored by Williams. In his place will be Alexandre Desplat, a French composer who has had numerous successes in his own right. His numerous credits include the score for Godzilla, The Golden Compass, and even contributions to the Harry Potter series of films. But the simple fact that he isn't John Williams is enough to make some people concerned, and that's reasonable given the impact that Williams has had on Star Wars as a whole.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that one day, this will be the norm. There will come a movie that will be the last Star Wars movie ever scored by John Williams. That seems far away, but with Williams being hesitant to return for Episode 8, it may come sooner than we Star Wars fans may want.

It's going to happen, there's nothing we can do to change it, so we might as well just accept it. But what does the future hold? There's the possibility that Lucasfilm will find a unique composer for each movie. An argument could be made for this decision, since you could say it will make each Star Wars film feel distinct and unique. But, I personally disagree with it. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that the music is the glue that holds the entire franchise together. Having the music be the one thing that's a constant throughout the years seems fitting. However, I can agree with having a different composer for each of the Star Wars Stories, since these are by nature supposed to be different and a little separated from the main saga.Aas long as they still retain some of the basic musical themes, I have no objections to branching out a little bit for the Stories.

The other option is for Lucasfilm to find a successor to Williams that will score all Star Wars films for the foreseeable future. There's definitely plenty of composers out there who can emulate Williams' style, some of whom are currently involved with various Star Wars projects, whether its video games like Star Wars: The Old Republic or the popular Star Wars Rebels TV series. But if Lucasfilm wants a big-name Hollywood composer, Michael Giacchino seems more than capable of taking over the helm from Williams. His credits, to name a few, include the Star Trek series of films and numerous Pixar films including the Incredibles and Up. More recently, he composed the score for Jurassic World, and has even provided Star Wars-style music for the Star Tours attraction in the various Disney Parks. With these two projects, he's proven that he's not only capable of breathing new life into existing music composed by Williams, but is also capable of creating brand new pieces that blend in seamlessly.

No matter what route Lucasfilm decides to take, the simple truth is that eventually Star Wars music will change. Nobody can say how much it will change, but if I'm being honest, I would hate to hear the same three musical themes over and over for the next three decades worth of Star Wars movies, so we do need some change. There's people out there that can bring change to the music while still utilizing the foundation that John Williams has so artfully created. Replacing Williams would be a monumental task, and a monumental decision to find the right composer(s), but when the time comes (and I hope it isn't any time soon), I have confidence that Lucasfilm will do everything they can to make the best decision. Lately they have proven that they don't take any decision lightly and I get the sense that everyone involved in these new Star Wars films is truly trying to make the best movie they can. So I have faith that whatever they ultimately decide will be the right choice.

New Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Official Trailer!

As the release date for Rogue One gets closer and closer, marketing for the film is continuing to ramp up. 

With just a little over four months to go until the release of the film on December 16, we finally have another official trailer. Check it out, and make sure to watch until the very end!

My Thoughts on Suicide Squad

SPOILERS

Earlier today I was finally able to see Suicide Squad. For me, it was one of the most anticipated movies of the summer (but I was interested in a lot of movies this summer so it's really hard to say), easily much more so than Batman vs Superman. I'll admit, this was primarily due to my disappointment with Man of Steel, but over all, I think what I found more appealing about Suicide Squad was that it was something different. It seemed like it was going to bring much more to the table than your traditional super hero movie, much like Guardians of the Galaxy did back in 2014.

Before I talk about what I thought, lets get something out of the way. When it comes to the recent DC movies, I'm not much of a fan. It's not that I am some die-hard Marvel fanboy. I enjoy DC super heroes, I just feel that their movies fall short. As I mentioned already, I was disappointed with Man of Steel. I felt like it was a movie that had a lot of potential, but ultimately didn't live up to it due to story problems. In my opinion, Batman vs Superman had even more potential and could have been something truly amazing. But again, I feel like it suffered with story problems, got distracted, and tried to be too many things at once. Even with all of this in mind, I was still really looking forward to Suicide Squad and went in with an open mind.

So now, what did I think? Well, I think that Suicide Squad is easily the best movie we've had so far in the DC Extended Universe. It did a lot of things right that the previous two movies just didn't.

Let's talk about the cast first. For the most part, the acting is good. There's nothing that stands out as terrible or underwhelming. But on the flip side, I thought that Margot Robbie and Jared Leto as Harley Quinn and the Joker, respectively, were fantastic. Jared Leto's performance may have been a bit cartoonish and over the top, but I think that's acceptable for the character, and I think I'll come to like his take on the Joker.

Suicide Squad, in my opinion, easily had a more focused and prominent story than Batman v Superman. In that movie, we're lead to believe that the main story is the fight between Batman and Superman, but in reality, that was just a plot device to bring about a much large (and in my opinion) much less interesting story of defeating Lex Luthor and his plans.

This isn't to say that Suicide Squad's story was perfect. I still feel like at times it was a bit distracted. I know that Harley Quinn and the Joker are hugely popular characters, and I will freely admit that I would like to see a movie dedicated solely to them, but in a lot of ways I felt like the subplot involving the Joker was in a lot of ways unnecessary. The people in charge of making the film must agree with this to a certain extent because there were many scenes involving the Joker that ultimately didn't make the final cut. Certain of these flashbacks were necessary, particularly the ones telling us more about Harley, but the ones that dealt almost exclusively with characterizing the Joker weren't needed. I feel like they existed solely to set up another movie.

And that's hitting on something that's really bothered me with the DC Extended Universe thus far. It's obvious that DC is trying to emulate the highly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe by making a series of movies that are all interconnected and lead to a big crossover movie. However, Marvel does this very naturally and DC seems to be doing it rather clumsily. All f the Marvel movies flow very well into one another. There's no awkward or forced connections, no unnecessary and shoehorned set ups for the next movie or next character. Marvel introduced all of it's Avengers super heroes either through their own stand alone films, or as side characters in those movies. But these side characters, like Black Widow (Iron Man 2) and Hawkeye (Thor) and their place in the film don't feel forced. They fit very naturally into the existing story and the movie is never truly about them.

However, I feel DC does the opposite. In Batman v Superman, Wonder Woman is shoehorned into a little subplot, solely to introduce her character, instead of more naturally introducing her in her own movie, which is coming out next year anyway. The bottom line is that because its not naturally part of the story, it feels awkward and distracting. The movie momentarily becomes about her, rather than Batman and Superman. That's what the Joker scenes in Suicide Squad felt like to me. Yes, the Joker does serve some purpose in that his death provides the catalyst for some characterization of Harley, and ultimately something Harley could trick Enchantress with in the finale. But did the film really need all of the scenes involving the Joker that it actually had? I learned more about the Joker and his character than I did about half of the actual members of Suicide Squad, and I think that's a problem. And it seems like this was done for no other purpose that to introduce Joker for a later movie.

So with that in mind do I hate the movie? No, it's a fun ride. Yeah, it has problems. Yeah, certain depictions of the characters may be a bit unconventional, the story might not be air tight, and the soundtrack may seem strange at points, but it's still a fun, enjoyable movie. I still would rank this the best of the DCEU movies thus far and see it as an improvement.

Visual Storytelling: Star Wars A New Hope Opening Scene

If you live anywhere civilized on planet Earth, I'd venture to say you're probably more than well aware of a little movie called Star Wars. Before its release nearly 40 years ago, many people in the filmy industry thought it was going to flop. It took writer and director George Lucas more than a few pitches to get the backing of a studio and throughout the entire shoot, film crews thought the ideas were more than a little strange and called it a kids' movie. Even stars Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford (I instinctively wrote Han Solo) were guilty of goofing off on set and not taking the whole thing very seriously.

But as we all know (well, you should know by now) Star Wars turned into a huge success. Among other things, the movie was praised for its ground-breaking special effects, which indeed played a very large part in the success of it all. But are a few flashy effects and stunning visuals all it takes to turn any movie into a smash hit? As much as Michael Bay wishes, that's not the case. If that were true, movies like Gods of Egypt would be enduring classics. What does, however, go a long way in propelling a movie to success is the use of special and visual effects to help the story of the movie. It may seem like common sense, but there's actually a lot of subtlety involved in telling a complex story visually. It's something that a lot of movies have a hard time with it seems. It's one thing to show what's going on, it's another to imply so much more about the characters and underlying situation while doing so.

Star Wars is an example of a movie that nailed the subtlety of visual storytelling. I believe that this artistic (and technical) success is one of the reasons why Star Wars ultimately blew people away. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that without this successful visual storytelling, the movie probably would've been a flop. From the very first scene, Star Wars relied heavily on visual storytelling, and the first scene itself is probably one of the most impactful uses of visual storytelling in the entire series.

It's the scene where (after the opening title crawl) the camera pans down to reveal a huge planet with the Rebel ship flying in from the top of the screen, followed by the approach of the massive Star Destroyer. It seems so simple, yet it really is quite a powerful scene. But when you think about it, there's plenty of ways that this scene could have been set up, and each of these would've had a different effect.

According to the book Industrial Light and Magic: The Art of Special Effects, this scene was described very simply in the original script of Star Wars as a ship flying towards a planet. Perhaps the simplest way to set up a shot like this would be to have the planet on one side of the screen with the ship on the other and the camera at a flat angle. While this would accomplish what is described in the script, it does so in a way that is far less dramatic as the final version in the film.

Having the ship fly from above the camera towards the planet below, as it does in the film, helps add perspective to the shot and helps us have a better idea of the size of the ship. Having the ship essentially fade off into the distance also gives us clues as to how vast the planet below is, and how vast space itself is, making it all seem much more convincing and real than if a flat angle shot was used.

But the shot wouldn't be complete without that giant Star Destroyer looming overhead. With the previous few seconds establishing the scale of everything, we can now get a sense of the scale of the Star Destroyer. It's clearly gigantic since it takes several seconds to reveal itself in its entirity, while the Rebel ship was fully on screen in a fraction of a second. The Star Destroyer is obviously much larger than the Rebel ship.

In just a few seconds, this tells us so much about the Rebel Alliance, the Empire, and the relation between the two. From this shot we can infer that the Rebel Alliance its much smaller and weaker than the Empire, which is overwhelmingly powerful. As the Rebel ship fleas from the Star Destroyer and its bombardment, we instantly know that the two are at odds and that the Alliance is just barely avoiding utter extermination. The similar fly in from above the camera also makes the Star Destroyer take up a large portion of the screen, which implies power and dominance

And you don't even have to think about any of this while watching the movie. You just know, because the shot is so wonderfully constructed and shot. It's subtle elements like these that no doubt won over the hearts of movie goers way back in 1977.

The Difference Between Special Effects and Visual Effects

In the present day and age, effects are all over the place in movies. Due to advances in the creation of CGI, directors and producers can literally put anything they want to in their movies. With all the effects these days, we hear terms like "special effects" and "visual effects" a lot. These two terms may seem like two different ways of saying the same thing, but there's actually a difference, and it's quite important. So what is that difference?

In broadest terms special effects (SFX) are effects that are created on the film set itself. These effects can be as large or small in scope as needed for the specific scene. Special effects are often referred to as practical effects. Now it may sound like SFX just means things like explosions, but in reality there's a lot more encompassed by the idea. SFX includes other area effects like smoke, fog, and rain, all of which can add a tremendous amount to movie scenes.

Mechanical effects like moving set pieces and animatronics are also considered SFX. These may seem like lesser used types of effects, but there's probably more uses of them than you may realize. Animatronics have been used to create some of the classic creatures from films in recent decades, including the T-rex and Velociraptors from Jurassic Park and Treebeard in Lord of the Rings. This may seem like an effect technique that is used rather infrequently, but there's probably more uses of it than you might think.

Other SFX include miniature photography, used in hundreds of movies over the past few decades, even movies like Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl and The Dark Knight. This is probably the most iconic form of SFX due to movies like Star Wars, and the one that most people seem to lament the loss of. Miniature effects are still used quite frequently however, and some recent uses of such effects may surprise you.

Some more miscellaneous forms of SFX include the use of special lenses, lighting effects, or camera movements to achieve a unique look for the finished scene. These types of effects are used less frequently. This does not include things like panning or zooming of the camera, which are traditional elements of cinematography.

Now as for visual effects (VFX) things (on paper) are a bit simpler, but the range of effects is just as broad if not more so than that of SFX. VFX is considered anything created through the use of computer technology, or in decades prior, hand drawn animation. VFX can essentially create anything done by SFX, which is why many people fear that SFX are being used less and less frequently. VFX includes the creation of digital 3D models, used in animating certain elements in a scene, or even entire sequences of a movie. VFX also includes other more subtle techniques like color and lighting correction.

So I hope that clears some things up!

Thanks for reading. As I'm sure you've noticed, right now the blog is a little bit empty. I'm working on getting out as much quality content as quickly as possible, so if you liked what you read please stop by again soon!

An Entertinmanet Theory Reboot!

Hello everyone!

I've decided to try and reboot this little old blog. I've got lots of ideas for new content that I'm sure people will love, featuring everything from movie reviews, hardcore analysis of movie scene composition, and everything in between.

In our modern world, we're almost constantly surrounded by some sort of entertainment. While on the surface, things like movies, video games and television shows may seem like just a simple way to pass the time, in reality, there's a lot of complex and subtle things going on that make it all work so well. There's hundreds, if not thousands of artists and designers working behind the scenes on everything we see to bring it to life. So let's peal back the curtain a bit and see how it all works!

Animal Characters

I’m sure that most, if not all of you know that one of the primary functions of a main character in a story, whether it’s a book, movie or video game, is to be relatable to the audience. If a character is relatable, it helps the audience be connected with and immersed in the story. When we relate to the characters, we see some aspect of ourselves within them, and as a result get some sort of satisfaction out of them achieving their goals or overcoming their hardships. Of course, that’s an extremely watered-down version, but with even this little bit of knowledge its easy to see why animal characters tend not to work so well and why the entertainment offerings they are involved with tend not to succeed.

We’ve all seen or read a story that has an abundance of animals in the roles of the main and supporting characters. From cartoons to children’s books and even summer comedies, there are more than a few handfuls of stories that involve primarily animals. Almost 100% of the time, these animals are at least somewhat personified, that is, they’re given human characteristics. If it weren’t for this simple fact, almost all stories (there are probably a few exceptions) that involve excessive use of animals would fail outright and utterly. If they weren’t given human traits and didn’t suffer through pseudo-human trials and hardships, then these animal characters would serve no purpose in a story other than being cute and cuddly. Because at its heart a story needs some form of audience connection, the personification of these animals is a necessity.

Even so, personification can only get these creatures so far. No matter how anthropomorphic an animal character is the audience still subconsciously knows that the character isn’t human, and is therefore less relatable. It is this fact alone that is responsible for the lack of success that an animal-driven story has when trying to convey any story that is mildly serious or substantial. They may evoke or imply themes that are more mature and serious, but for the most part, what’s on the surface is fairly simplistic and dull.

This is why animal-driven stories are usually reserved for children’s TV shows and cartoons, books, and movies. In these genres, the characters are usually less relatable anyway. Animal characters excel in particular in cartoons, however, because at their nature they are meant to deliver comic mischief and humor, rather than anything substantial (not to put them down). One might argue that characters like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny are just as relatable as any standard human character. Indeed, they are fairly relatable, but in part I believe this is due to their longevity. Anyway, at the heart of their respective cartoons, these characters never really dealt with any serious or complicated stories, we as an audience just simply watched their cartoonish antics and adventures. In fact, these characters are in situations that are so outlandish that by comparison these characters seem more human than others. We’ve simply come to associate with those characters because of the long history and their place in popular culture.

Characters such as these present a special case of animal characters, and I’d like to continue on that further in the next article. Thanks for reading!