STAR TREK Cinematographer Daniel Mindel To Reteam with J.J. Abrams For STAR WARS

STAR TREK Cinematographer Daniel Mindel To Reteam with J.J. Abrams For STAR WARS

Today at a film industry event in Los Angeles, it was apparently revealed that Mindel will once again join Abrams on his upcoming Star Wars flick. Plus, the director is said to be shooting the movie on 35mm film. Read on for more..

Although we are very much in the digital age of movie-making, it seems J.J. Abrams is continuing resist the changeover from film and will shoot Star Wars: Episode VII on 35mm -- Kodak film stock 5219 to be precise! This was Announced today (via Bobba at a film industry event in Los Angeles, where it was also revealed that Abrams would reteam with his Star Trek/ Mission Impossible 3 cinematographer, Daniel Mindel. Midel was on hand to discuss his work with Abrams, and told an interesting story about the director's penchant for lens flares. Apparently a mistake flare caught Abrams' eye, and Dan showed him how they are created, and the rest is history! None of this has been officially confirmed just yet, but many reports are coming in from the event so it looks like a sure thing.

Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Star Wars" 8/22/2013 Source: Boba
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
Areajerm - 8/22/2013, 4:30 PM
This is interesting. The last two prequels were shot on digital and this one will be shot on film. A step backwards?
3DWitchHunt - 8/22/2013, 4:33 PM

DaenerysTargaryen - 8/22/2013, 4:41 PM
Thats good to know I guess. How long till we get casting news?
JDUKE25 - 8/22/2013, 4:42 PM
I really hope JJ looks at the original trilogy for reference for pacing/character dialogue (not everyone trying to do a bad British accent/cinematography/amount of time a lightsaber is being used/and amount of CGI vs practical effects (models)

And the opening better remain the same. Have the crawl and slowly pan down to a planet or ship.
JDUKE25 - 8/22/2013, 4:51 PM
And yes, less flares. VERY less flares.
ManofSteel23 - 8/22/2013, 4:53 PM
[frick]ing hate lens flare
AnAvenger - 8/22/2013, 4:53 PM
Lol. You people an your stereotypes.
TheSoulEater - 8/22/2013, 4:54 PM
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 5:02 PM
I like Lens Flares. I think it give Abrams movies sort of his own little signature.

That is right haters, bring it on.

Tony93 - 8/22/2013, 5:07 PM
whats the difference?
TheOneAboveAll - 8/22/2013, 5:09 PM
Lensflare time
Mego - 8/22/2013, 5:19 PM
How many shit movies must Abrams make before people realize the scope, the magnitude of his sucking abilities?

You could power a vacuum cleaner with Abrams films. Abrams as a director is like a hoax he is getting away with because people are too blind to catch him.

Schumacher got caught, Shyamalan was busted for false Directing, Lucas was tried and convicted of Directing crimes but Abrams continues to suck along with his hoax Directing.

In all of Abrams films there has yet to be even one great scene let alone a film but now his hoax has made him the Star Wars VII director.
ALegendaryPanda - 8/22/2013, 5:20 PM
Holy shit who cares about the [frick]ing lens flare?! I swear you shitbirds are like 20 broken records going off at the same [frick]ing time.
CuddlyCereal - 8/22/2013, 5:29 PM
Everyone bitches about Abrams and his lens flares. Why does no one bitch about Spielberg and his obsession for spotlights.
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 5:34 PM
@darkmetal Comparing those guys to Abrams? Are you high?
Facade - 8/22/2013, 5:35 PM
Lens flares will be natural now...much love for Abrams!
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 5:38 PM
"grif will not be pleased..."

Minato - 8/22/2013, 5:39 PM
This is very uninspired. Why get the same people from your rival instead of trying to differentiate yourself. This is the reason GOTG will rule. It will be different and fresh
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 5:42 PM
@2Challa He also worked with Abrams on MI3. He's just using one person who he's familiar with.

If he really wanted to bring everyone from Trek, John Williams wouldn't be doing the score.
Mego - 8/22/2013, 5:44 PM
@ndwwrestler2 Some of those guys made at least one great film before the bottom fell out. Abrams has yet to direct a film as good as American Graffiti, New Hope, Lost Boys, Unbreakable. So while he doesn'r deserve to be compared to them those "director's" skills did decline to the point that their continued employment as Directors became a hoax.

Much like the Rob Liefeld Artist hoax or the Tim Tebow NFL hoax the Abrams Director hoax has it's believers but it is still just a hoax.
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 5:50 PM
@Darkmetal George Lucas made one good film, Shyalaman has made two good films, and Schumacher has made one ore two good movies.

Abrams has made four good movies. And that doesn't even count the TV shows, which are pretty fricking great as well.

prettynucIear - 8/22/2013, 6:14 PM
Abram doesn't know how to film action. He actually doesn't even try.
Mego - 8/22/2013, 6:16 PM
@ndwwrestler2 Lucas made 2 good films.

While some people like some of Abrams stuff none of it is great. Into Darkness was so bad it made many rethink their opinions on Star Trek (2009). Those were 2 badly directed films from 2 cheap and comical scripts.

Films like Super 8 aren't great. Theyre just filler films for Summer Box office like Spielberg's War Of The Worlds, the Mission Impossible films, Transformers series, GI Joe, Lone Ranger and most sequels.

Films like Dark Knight, Skyfall, are great films and beyond the abilities of guys like Abrams, Snyder or Bay.
Abrams can make temporary fan favorites but not great films. It's just not within his reach.

Into Darkness was his take on Wrath Of Khan. Wrath of Khan is an immortal classic. And the distance between it's greatness and Abrams mediocre Into Darkness is tremendous. Into Darkness was filled with many meaningless and disposable scenes that couldve been cut and it wouldn't have hurt the film. In Wrath of Khan every moment mattered. The entire film was like one large beautiful work of art and it all fit together as a piece of art.
Into Darkness was just an attempt by Abrams and Paramount at crowdpleasing to make money. There wasn't an artistic or classic moment in it or any of Abrams films.

Great films might please crowds but they usually do it by taking chances and giving the crowd something they didn't know they wanted.
Minato - 8/22/2013, 6:17 PM
Im still upset that they are using Abrams to begin with after he use directed 2 Trek films.
DetBullock - 8/22/2013, 6:38 PM
No, not the lens flares again, please.
ndwwrestler2 - 8/22/2013, 7:22 PM
@darkmetal Maybe it's just me, but I enjoyed Into Darkness more than I did Wrath of Khan.

Super 8 was a beautiful film to me. The dialogue was well written, it was surprisingly well acted (surprising because it was kids) and it had heart. Things that I look for in a movie.

Lucas made a New Hope, and that was the only good movie he made. The other Star Wars movies were directed by someone else.

Honestly I can't put the GI Joe and Transformers, and Lone Ranfer Movies with War of the Worlds, The Mission Impossible Series (minus the second one).

@2Challa I don't see Star Trek and Star Wars the way I see DC and Marvel.

The only thing Star Wars and Star Trek have in common is that they both have 'star' at the beginning of their titles.

Bojac - 8/22/2013, 9:37 PM
I think the biggest news is that Star Wars 4 is being shot on film. Pretty big middle finger to Lucas and his space battles films.
charlie2094 - 8/22/2013, 10:31 PM

Abrams HAS made four successful, financially and critically films, that are all great.

I personally think Abrams Trek films are better than what came before and after a rewatch, I definitely prefer Into Darkness to Wrath of Khan. The films have been really successful and well liked, the only people who don't like them have been the "hardcore" Trekkies. Into Darkness may have been "so bad" in your opinion, but it's the most successful Star Trek film to date and critics loved it, as the public have too.

Nice that they're shooting on film, kind of assumed he'd use the same cinematographer as it's someone he knows and has worked with before. Film often looks better, so glad they're going back to it
Grayson7954 - 8/22/2013, 11:37 PM
the news here is its being shot on 35 mm, THANK GOD, digital is shit and you can in ep 2 and ep 3 its shit.
MrChuff - 8/23/2013, 4:10 AM
Star Trek - lens flares. Big deal?

Star Wars - different universe and art direction.

There wont be lens flares. For fvcks sake.

Wish people could grasp the concept that Abrams MIGHT think about using a different visual template for Episode 7 based on the look of The Original Trilogy.

Oh and Grif is still a twat.
nach1wan - 8/23/2013, 4:59 AM
leave the lens flares for star trek.

thank you
gaikinger - 8/23/2013, 10:51 AM
lens lens flare...whatever Abrams wants to do......cant wait to see what he does.
AutobotCommander84 - 8/23/2013, 11:07 AM
35mm film looks so much better than digital. I hope that if and when the day comes that I become a director, the producer or the studio will let me shoot 35mm anamorphic instead of digital.
ABLEE337 - 8/23/2013, 3:55 PM
SamHell - 8/23/2013, 9:04 PM
@dark metal...why are you so serious?

@alegendarypanda...just what I was thinking. it's like they have nothing else.
WachuOptu - 8/24/2013, 2:14 PM
I like the JJ Abrams Trek movies, and I have enjoyed most of his past work. To each their own. But in case all the fanboys forgot, when the sequel was announced a large number of people on this very site were posting their desire for JJ to use Kahn as the villain. Personally, I dug his take... aside from Spock screaming "Kaaahhhhnnn!" You can respectfully borrow from the past but you can't out-Shatner Shatner.
ABLEE337 - 8/24/2013, 2:31 PM
@ sethasa

Agreed, you can't out-Shatner Shatner.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.