Audio Video News

Star Wars Shatters Box Office Records…and Raises a Question

SV Staff  |  Dec 21, 2015

If you saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens over the weekend, your hard-earned dollars contributed to an estimated domestic take of $238 million in its first there days, shattering the $208.8 million opening weekend record of set by Jurassic World in June. Add in foreign box office receipts—except China, where it has yet to open—and you’re at a half billion ($517 million), according to Box Office Mojo, which on a global basis is actually slightly less than Jurrasic’s opening.

The predictable smashing success of The Force Awakens aside, TechRadar’s Dave James raises some interesting questions:

Why did director JJ Abrams shoot the epic on 35mm film? Has Star Wars turned its back on digital projection, the format George Lucas helped pioneer? He writes:

…Why is the series that has done so much to move the industry forward now taking a technological step backwards? And what is that going to mean for the new movie?...

[Turns out] the decision to shoot on film is in part an effort to recover the feel of the beloved original trilogy…

“This was really important, that the movie, in a way, go backwards to go forwards," Abrams told Screenrant. "This was very much about new characters and a new story, and like Star Wars has always been at its best, a generational tale of understanding young people and understanding their place in the world. So these are brand new characters that we're meeting, but I wanted it to look and feel the way the original trilogy did."

Read the full story here.

What are your thoughts?

COMMENTS
TheJoBoo's picture
Submitted by TheJoBoo on December 21, 2015 - 8:34am

A serious compliant about Epsiodes 1-3, one that may outlast those regarding the stale acting and questionable characters, is the overuse of computer generated images. Science fiction movies do not need to look artificial to appear futuristic.

NoHoR56's picture
Submitted by NoHoR56 on December 21, 2015 - 11:34am

It's a pretty absurd notion to consider the use of 35mm as some sort of "step back". Many post production professionals consider 35mm to have detail it takes 6K to preserve. It's an artistic choice, as much as anything. And if it's good enough for Spielberg, Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and JJ Abrams it's probably still state-of-the-art. Plus, everything ends up in the digital domain anyway. It's the "look" of film that filmmakers care the most about, although it's certainly not the only consideration. It's important to note that just because something is "new" that's it's better. Many recent video advances - such as high frame rate - result in images that are certainly higher is resolution but are not necessarily "better" to convey epic human stories. Arguably, Lucas is the one who took a step back with Phantom Menace etc. True, digital cameras are getting better and better, but part of that is they are looking more "film-like". To question the format JJ Abrams chose to shoot Force Awakens is kind of silly. Really? How'd it turn out?

MrLarry's picture
Submitted by MrLarry on December 21, 2015 - 5:09pm

I agree overall with what NoHoR56 is saying here... Although I think the questioning of Phantom Menace using digital cameras is a little small minded. Using digital for a movie like Star Wars tells the industry and consumers that this is the way of the future. Sure, it was early days, but it helped accelerate the take up of digital.

The other thing to consider is that a director likes to work in a certain medium and with certain tools. Film and digital are just more tools in the tool box.

William Lee's picture
Submitted by William Lee on December 21, 2015 - 5:19pm

With all the money the Star Wars is making, I am disappointed that the film was not shot entirely in IMAX 70mm. Like other have said, the 35mm would have greater resolution, dynamic range, and color than the current digital camera. I also don't like the scope aspect ratio. Why can't it shot at 1.85? The audience is not getting wider view of vision when the film is shot in scope. With a film that features space, flying, high speed chase and 3D, the increase height ratio of the screen would make audience feels like in the movie.

utopianemo's picture
Submitted by utopianemo on December 22, 2015 - 9:23am

I don't think you meant to ask if Star Wars had turned its back on digital projection. As for being shot in film, who cares? I've been decidedly ambivalent about the question ever since I read an interview with Spielberg, right after he made Minority Report. The interviewer asked Spielberg what he thought about Lucas' needling him for not switching to digital cinematography. Spielberg gave some demure answer, but I remember thinking Lucas would better spend his efforts making a movie that wasn't a total and absolute turd. Then he could justifiably rib a superior director on his or her choice of medium.

When it gets right down to it, the state of the art of digital apes film pretty well these days. I'm more interested in the stuff Doug Trumbull is working on; in the most recent Home Theater Geeks Podcast, he talks about solving the issue with high frame rates causing the soap opera effect, thereby mitigating the negatives associated with HFR. If his technique is all its cracked up to be, then I might be more interested in the question of digital versus film.

utopianemo's picture
Submitted by utopianemo on December 22, 2015 - 9:27am

I should emphasize that film and digital both look fabulous. Let the directors use whatever helps them produce the best movie they can.

X