Star Wars Episode 7 News

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Disney Confirms IMAX Release for Star Wars: Episode 7.

a new hope

Few months ago J.J. Abrams said that he won't be using IMAX cameras for the filming of Star Wars: Episode 7 because, "they break down often, they are loud, unreliable and slow". So no IMAX cameras for Episode 7 but that doesn't mean that they can't release it in IMAX. The movie will be converted to IMAX. Hit the jump for the official press release...



From comicbookmovie:
LOS ANGELES – March 20, 2014 – IMAX Corporation (NYSE:IMAX; TSX:IMX) and The Walt Disney Studios, a division of The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS), today announced an agreement to release several of Disney’s upcoming films in IMAX® theatres under an extension of the companies’ long-running relationship.

Under the agreement, IMAX will be part of Disney’s release strategy for its most highly-anticipated live-action tentpole films, including Marvel’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier (April 2014), Maleficent (May 2014), Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy (August 2014), and Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron (May 2015), Tomorrowland (May 2015) and Star Wars: Episode VII (December 2015).
star wars
 “Disney has enjoyed a terrific ongoing collaboration with IMAX, and we are thrilled to extend this relationship with a collection of exciting, highly anticipated cinematic events that are perfect for the immersive IMAX format,” said Alan Bergman, President, The Walt Disney Studios.
“For the last several years, Disney and IMAX have worked together to deliver extraordinary cinematic experiences to audiences around the world,” said IMAX CEO Richard L. Gelfond. “The combination of the great product being created by Disney and the overwhelming enthusiasm of moviegoers to see films in IMAX theatres makes this agreement really exciting.”

“Disney’s and Marvel’s larger-than-life characters and dynamic universes clearly resonate with our core audiences,” said Greg Foster, Senior Executive Vice President of IMAX Corp. and CEO of IMAX Entertainment. “We are delighted to build upon this longtime association and continue to collaborate to bring many of the most iconic and cutting-edge properties in the world to life in the most immersive way possible.”


41 comments:

  1. ok so forgive me for being ignorant... but if they aren't going to shoot it in IMAX, how are they going to show it in IMAX... some sort of conversion i guess??? sorry I'm a Star Wars fan, not a movie tech person...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, just because they're not using IMAX cameras doesn't mean the cameras they are using aren't compatible.

      Delete
    2. Yes, they are doing an IMAX conversion.

      Delete
  2. thanks for the info...

    ReplyDelete
  3. J J Abrams says he won't direct Star Wars... than he does.
    J J Abrams says he won't film for IMAX... than he does.

    I notice a pattern going on here. Next, I hope he states that he will never recast Mark Hamill, because that will only mean he will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were a highly acclaimed film maker/enormous Star Wars fan with your whole career still ahead of you and someone offered you a job directing the next installment of Star Wars being produced by Disney, wouldn't you initially turn it down knowing that messing up even the slightest bit of information could turn hundreds of thousands of fans against you and potentially ruin your career? He accepted the job after turning it down because he's confident in himself and knows he's going to make a great movie. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for him.
      He also said that they won't be using IMAX cameras. That doesn't mean they won't release the film in IMAX theaters...
      There's really no pattern.

      Delete
    2. He IS NOT filming in IMAX as he said.

      Delete
    3. The statement right here is the most mind boggling: "Next, I hope he states that he will never recast Mark Hamill, because that will only mean he will."

      Even if you're not a fan of the OT, replacing Mark Hamill at this point makes NO SENSE whatsoever. It's set 30 years or so after ROTJ and present day is 32 years after filming began on ROTJ.

      Delete
    4. Rebel Scum: Anonymous was saying he WANTS Hamill, even if his preluding logic was invalid.

      Delete
    5. Next he says Jar Jar Binks will not appear in episode 7....

      Delete
  4. Ugh, don't care about imax and 3d, and I'm 99% sure JJ and Dan Mindel don't care about it either. At least they aren't shooting Imax and 3D. But I hope this conversion stuff doesn't force them to limit what they can and can't do with the cinematography work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good news that they aren't messing with IMAX cameras for Episode 7. Has it also been confirmed that they definitely are not shooting Episode 7 in 3D?

    I really, REALLY hope they aren't. 3D is the single worst thing to happen to movies since the seizure-cam nonsense that we've been stuck with for the past decade or two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean when in action scenes the camera is shakes and pans uncontrollably like when it's having a spasm?

      Delete
    2. Yep, and it's not just action scenes. Some movies (District 9 and whatever Saw movie I walked out on about 10 years back spring readily to mind) lay the jitter-cam trip on every damned scene in the movie, right down to simple expositional dialogue scenes.

      Delete
    3. I hate that, too. What started all that crap? I'm wanting to say I first saw that in the Bourne movies, but I liked those in spite of all of that. However, The Matrix comes to mind, but it was slow motion camera panning.

      Delete
    4. I think The Blair Witch Project gets the credit for shaky-cam. I do want to note that IMAX has REALLY good sound...

      Delete
  6. I remember first noticing it in Saving Private Ryan (along with the strobe/high-speed effect and that greyed-out, oversaturated look) but for that the shaky-cam thing was almost appropriate because it sort of simulated the effect of it being shot by a newsreel cameraman with a handheld rig.

    Then again, now that I think of it, I think filmmakers really started getting hooked on the shaky-cam thing when Blair Witch Project came out.

    Regardless, I've always found it to be an incredibly lazy choice, not just from a cinematography perspective, but also from a basic director's standpoint. Can't be bothered to develop tension via story and character interaction? Shake the camera until the audience feels tense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately JJ Abrams is infamous for his lense flares and shakey cam.. Hope he realises that they don't fit the aesthetics of star wars.

      Delete
    2. The lens flare thing doesn't really bother me all that much. Lucas did plenty of it in the PT, and it never really even registered until I thought about it later on.

      The shaky cam thing, though, most certainly does NOT line up with the aesthetics of Star Wars. There was one hand-held looking quick zoom shot on a gunship during the big ground battle at the end of AOTC, and that was obviously just Lucas wanting to do a brief visual homage to the old news footage from Vietnam (especially since Star Wars initially grew partly out of his aborted involvement with the project that became Apocalypse Now) but no... overall the epilepti-cam thing is not at all the same kind of cinematography that Star Wars is known for.

      Delete
  7. ok this may be totally off topic and i'm sure i've read the idea before. Since this is 30 years later, at some point we have to assume that luke and or whatever jedi survived if any have started atleast to rebuild the order in some shape or form... would i be going out on a limb to say that an older kick ass mace windu would not be awesome returning as sort of a sage to luke... i.e.. we never actually saw him die... what if the story was he absconded along with yoda or even helped yoda escape and then hid out himself... and that he came back and helped mentor or rebuild the order with luke.. hey it could be wishful thinking but he's probably one of my favorite jedi characters aside from the main leads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luke is the sage for this trilogy. No need for a sage for a sage. BTW, Mace Windu was not the greatest character. The only reason Mace existed was to have an excuse to put Samuel Jackson in the trilogy (big mistake).

      Delete
    2. Also, even if Mace was a great character and Samuel Jackson enhanced the Star Wars universe, it is a totally dumb thing to bring him back. He is dead and any attempt to bring him back (like Darth Maul) would be gimmicky.

      Delete
    3. i agree that luke is the sage, but i could just see him being one of the very familiar faces they are talking about. maul was cut in half... mace was thrown out a window and shocked, and the last we see of him he is falling and not dead. anakin can jump out of a speeder mid sequence and fall hundreds of feet and survive, i hardly think it's a bad stretch to think a jedi master like mace couldn't do the same. not saying it's the best option but it is something that wouldn't have to be totally explained away as oh this is a clone or he came back from the dead etc.... and i disagree about him being a good character. he played the serious role pretty well.. either way just bring it on i'm ready for the movie...

      Delete
    4. Mace wouldv'e cropped up by now. plus he would overshadow Luke's role. Plus mace windu was, i'm guessing, like 35 in the prequels. so add 19 years to that to get to the originals he would have been about 55. Then add another 5 years to get to return of the jedi he would be 60. add 30+ years to get to this saga, he would currently be 90+ years old ... so no thanks

      Delete
    5. i'm not saying it makes sense or would be the best way to go but you never know. and the age thing doesn't matter... yoda was older than dirt... just saying they have comments and rumors from everybody and their momma who was, is, or wants to be in star wars... he was talked to and said he would come back. given the right story or idea i could see him popping up, if only in a minor role... hell a stretch could be that he was captured by the empire and tortured and turned evil... ha the possibilities are endless and i only say that because i know someone else will go all nuts on that idea... either way i'm looking forward to it. i grew up with the originals and as long as they don't massacre it like phantom menace was done, i will be happy.

      Delete
    6. "and the age thing doesn't matter... yoda was older than dirt..."
      ...Are you serious? Is this still a serious suggestion? Yoda wasn't human. Didn't you hear what obi-wan said, a.k.a, a human being?? "I'm getting too old for this sort of thing". They age normally, and a 90 YEAR OLD mace windu is going to be completely stupid and pointless. It doesn't matter about his role or the story, it will take the importance of Luke's role of the lead jedi master away. If they are going to bring back a jedi, make it yoda as a ghost. As that makes sense because we saw that in the originals, and he has the limitations of being a ghost so his presence won't overshadow Luke's.

      Delete
    7. I'm just going to point out that force-sensitives live longer then normal people and Mace could probably have lived to 120... But a 95+ year old, even a jedi, isn't going to do jack shit

      Delete
    8. Samuel Jackson wanting to be in the prequels may be the main reason why Mace Windu was in those movies and exists in the form we now know him as, but a character named Mace Windu existed in early Star Wars drafts long before anyone knew there was going to be a prequel trilogy.

      Regarding his age, I think Mace was more like 55 in Episode III(Obi-Wan was 38 so if Mace was 35 he would have been younger than Obi-Wan). If so, he'd be about 108 in Episode VII.

      So I agree with those who think he'd be too old, but he'd actually be much older than being speculated in this thread.

      Delete
  8. Shaky cam is probably the worst thing that can still happen to SW and I'm tempted to say it WILL.
    JJ Abrams at the helm (never entirely convinced thats a good thing)
    He's done it with Cloverfield to the extreme.
    He's done it in Star Trek, so distinctively that it almost felt like they try to make the camera feel like a character. That is so wrong on many levels and can entirely ruin an experience.
    The shaky cam is totally JJ Abrams decision and it has become his trademark, so.
    Take a big gulp and swallow that one down.

    Star Trek was NEVER aesthetically supposed to have shaky cam, just as much as Star Wars does not.
    And Star Trek 2009 remains an ugly spoil.
    Glad you like the new Trek, but it has as much in common with the original vision as green sauce on pasta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From a purely technical stance Star Trek 09 was shot pretty well.

      Delete
  9. Disney just confimed mark hamill will be appearing at star wars weekend in june 6-8.

    if that's not concrete evidence I don't know what is... oh hey mark, come to the park and be in the parade and all but by the way we don't need you in the movies...yeah right!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. Looking forward to Mark's, and Carrie and Harrison's involvement and talk over the next few years or however long. Obviously not only them in the films, but the stuff outside of it. I love not only their characters, but Mark, Carrie and Harrison themselves. Particularly Mark and especially Carrie who I just love. She's so funny and is probably the wittiest celebrity I know. The talk shows, press conferences, interviews, outakes and bloopers. It's a good time to be a star wars fan.

      Delete
  10. Why is everyone so against 3D? I think it would be badass, at least as an option? Maybe they could release it in both flat and 3D IMAX versions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3D sucks because it:

      1) Darkens the image
      2) Is often blurry or flat
      3) Requires you to wear glasses
      4) Pushes up the ticket prices to near-extortionate levels
      5) Encourages 'made for 3D' movies, which suck in 2D (eg, Dredd)

      Delete
    2. The reply nailed it beautifully.

      Delete
    3. Ok but as I said, why not give the option for those who want to see it in 3D? I have a feeling Abrams will do it in 3D and Disney will want to make the xtra profits... I wouldn't mind spending 15 bucks or whatever it is to see it.

      Any of those 'made for 3D movies' probably suck anyway so who cares about those? It's not being filmed in 3D obviously so I don't think the pre-transfer standard IMAX would be effected would it?

      Delete
    4. By saying "Abrams will do it in 3D" I'm referring to a transfer, as I believe they did with that last Harry Potter movie (I don't think that was shot in 3D right?)

      Delete
  11. The best thing with 3D is that you actually have the option to decide if you want to see the movie in 2D or 3D. You don't have this opportunity with movies only released in 2D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is, even if you opt for the 2D version, you still end up with a movie full of shots and effects that constantly "mug" for the 3D cameras.

      Delete
  12. With the official confirmation of a May shoot date, there are three possibilities that work with Mark Hamill still being in the movie: All the filming they need to do with Mark Hamill will be over by the time of the Weekends, the shooting schedule was built around this promotional event and Hamill has shooting to do after the weekends(or is flying between England and Orlando to do the shooting and the appearances), or not all of the shooting is going to be done in England, and they will be making use of resources at the Orlando Studios.

    ReplyDelete