Saga To those who think the ST killed Star Wars, how do you cope?

There are no miniature environments in the ST, nor any model ships. The primary means for set extensions are simply CGI.

Yes, there are lots of location shoots, but that was true of the PT too. The only completely CG environments I can think of in the PT is the Droid Factory.

And I think the ST is a rehash. I know that's just my opinion, but there's very little novelty in the ST to me, masses of re-used OT scenarios, and an identical visual aesthetic.

 

Actually the backwall of the droid factory is a miniature as well.

Off-hand the only basically 100% one I can think of off-hand is the Jedi hangar when Anakin tells Mace of Palpatine being a Sith Lord.

I'm sure there must be others like the ST movies but it was early days for that kind of thing so they usually had sets and/or miniatures to make the process easier than simply all-CGI.

Various Kamino interiors for example were green screen for EM but the actual sets were miniatures not the CGI they would be nowadays

Mustafar's exterior would be almost entirely CGI now save for some bits of set for the actors instead of the most massive miniature shoot ever done on a Star Wars movie (and it always will be.)

 

You can't be serious...

 

I am serious, and that's a fact. As Qui even stated, not even the Droid Factory was fully CG.

 

Oh okay... "fully cg" got you. As long as there is some sand thrown on the ground it's not "fully cg"

Good lord...

 

Ok then, show me a 'fully CG' environment. I'll start:








See, they threw in a railing at least, it's not 'fully CG'.

Most PT backgrounds (besides parts of Coruscant, where the scale would most often make it unfeasible) were miniatures. TFA and TLJ used no miniatures and no models for spaceships (as far as I'm aware).

It's not my opinion. It's fact.

 

Look, I can selectively grab images too!

 

Ok, now we're in agreement that both trilogies used plenty of green screen. That was the point I was trying to make. I can do it for the OT too if you'd like.

Do you want me to show every location footage from all 3 too? Do I need to post the thousands of miniatures from the PT, weighed against the far fewer of the ST (one place the ST doesn't flinch on is puppets, lots and lots of those).

Difference is, OT generally relied on Matte Paintings for set extensions, PT used mostly miniatures, a handful of matte painting, and a few CG envirornments, while the ST (to the best of my knowledge) used entirely CG.

Edit: And as an aside, how exactly do you propose you do those PT or ST scenes without green screen? Should we build a giant droid factory for real? Or the Starkiller chasm?

 

Isn't that how Inuit elders traditionally choose to die when they give up on life, they just stand up from watching the ST with a vacant expression on their faces and then wander out into a blizzard?

Selective memory is what gets me through. Plenty of wonderful stuff to choose to remember to make up for the stuff I choose to forget.

 

A bit of perspective. The supposed propriety of the effects LFL were using did not define the marketing or the projected critical or commercial success of TFA by comparison to any film made before or after.

This notion that people were dishonestly drawn to TFA by promises that it had been "done better than those other films that people don't like as much because of CGI" type message pushed by the producers, and those particular films have been unduly traduced as a consequence, is a fantasy. The fact that there are so many promotional production phogoraphs available to fill this discussion and which demonstrate the reliance on digital imagery belies this supposed anti-digital campaign.

There is an argument that the suitability and the expediency of using CGi or not using it requires a far broader discussion thatn the couple of soundbites that accompany the promotion of a movie's production and release. However, these soundbites are not intended to define that argument or They are simply meant to stimulate interest and discussion in the film. I apreicate though that the subject matter is a sore spot for many fans on either side of the discussion and the merest hint of lack of equity of esteem for either of them is a serious problem.

The qualities of the digital effects of TFA are given equitable prominence in the making of TFA documentary by comparison to any other aspect of the film's development. It goes as far as calling the digital Falcon the best Falcon you could posssibly get on screen. Damned digits!!!!!

 

I don't think the ST killed Star Wars but it's not the same for me anymore. I liked TFA. I walked out of it with hope for the next film. TLJ left me with nothing except one or two cool things like Leia using the force for more than Luke calling out to her. I have no expectation for that last film in the Skywalker saga. My disappointment isn't based on EU centered head canon because I never read the books. I don't even play the video games. I just loved the overall story George created and the characters he gave us. Other than sticking with the PT and the OT I figure there are a couple things I can immerse myself in.

I loved Rogue One so I am cautiously optimistic that Ron Howard will knock Solo out of the park. Maybe the anthology films will be good distractions.

I am going to go back now and pick up the Vader and Aphra comics and start those.

I loved Claudia Gray's novels so if she continues to write SW I will give them a read.

 

The argument isn’t really that the PT using green screen was bad. That’s a strawman version of the complaint.

The argument was that the use of green screen in the prequels was excessive and poorly used. Look at that one image with Padme by the boxes. They couldn’t even make real boxes? What’s up with that?

The second part of this was that it was poorly used. You ask how they should have made the droid factory without greenscreen. Well, what I’m arguing is that they shouldn’t have done that sequence (a sequence which, BTW, was completely irrelevant from a plot, character, and thematic perspective) if they weren’t capable of making it look good.

The thing about the PT isn’t just the excessive use of CGI- it’s that, so often, the CGI is blended very poorly, and you can tell the live actors aren’t actually interacting with the environment.

This is what people who say “but the ST has more CGI than the PT” don’t understand. Yes, it does, however, it also looks much better and is better blended with practical effects.

 

I'd say it's very much the opposite. The PT was about actually blending while the ST likes to keep things as separate as it can. The PT constantly was blending all aspects together to create a 360 degree world while the ST favors a more restricted world.

Full interaction in the PT with more partial in the ST.

 

You’re confusing more blending with better blending. Quantity instead of quality.

The central issue with the blending in the PT is that it’s often poorly done. You can easily tell the live actors are in digital environments or interacting with digital characters. This was less of a problem in TPM, but became noticeable in AOTC and nearly omnipresent in ROTS.

 

In one sense I definitely don't need to "cope," as each new Disney release has thus far made I-VI a bit more special thanks to the new films failing to capture the creative essence I find in the original saga. Even watching the Solo teaser, and despite believing Howard will steer that one into being the best of the new films and one I legitimately enjoy, I couldn't help but think back to the PT style and how unique it stands out to me to this day. In a lot of ways the new stuff is like one big commercial enticing me to revisit the old stuff.

 

If Solo looked like the prequels then the prequel look wouldn't be unique, would it?

None of the new movies look like previous movies. In fact no two movies look the same.

Either taking refuge in the familiarity of PT, and thereby enhancing its stature is a coping strategy. Or you'd have to cope with Lucasfilm undermining the uniqueness of the PT, unless that's what you want.

In which case, it's irrelevant whether LFL put out Star Wars movies that suit your particular needs or not.

 

Not sure what relevance this has if you're referring to my post. I didn't impugn Solo for not looking like the PT, or suggest that it should look like the PT. I said that even though I'm optimistic about the film, the early look likewise served as a reminder of how the older material continues to drive my interest in the series. Basically a variant of "focus on the movies you like best," a view endorsed by many in this thread already.

 

I don't think so.

It's not only objectively far more (since the new movies don't use models and miniatures) but I'd say far better so it's both quantity (objective) and quality (subjective).

Also objectively after 3 movies of the new era there are few examples of anything of the complexity that the PT attempted and even when there are there is a pullback of going for that extra blend. From Coruscant, Naboo, Utapau, Mustafar, Kashyyyk, Kamino, Geonosis and Tatooine there is nothing much like that. The closest would be Jedha. Besides that there isn't much of great note certainly not in the ST. R1 did quite well but still did a lot of hedging. Solo also looks far better but again there is a pullback to more location based work.

Again if you think so then that is true for yourself but not for me. It's marvelously done AFAIC.

Well it's all "digital" now so I'm not sure of your meaning here.

If you mean do we know that what we are seeing isn't actually "real" then that is always the case. The new movies are very clearly using a lot of location work that is enhanced but not in such a way that they look like places in the PT that stand out as not simply being Earth-like.

TPM is still far more fantastical than the new movies but still has a super fantasy exotic Earth feel due to locations while for AOTC and ROTS Lucas was able to really expand the visual palette to Flash Gordon or John Carter of Mars with Utapau, Mustafar, Kashyyyk, Kamino, Geonosis and Coruscant.

For me ROTS is arguably the most gorgeous Star Wars movie other than TPM.

There's a fair bit of that I agree with.

I would say that TFA and TLJ do share quite a lot. That pulled back ethic lets make everything look like a more barren Earth. It's not just in the visuals alone (though that is the majority of it) but the people, the characters etc. The ST looks like no one actually lives anywhere. Where is everybody? In the OT you got a feeling of other worlds that made everything larger. We knew that we weren't seeing the best places.

More of a lording over I'd say because we know what can be done so why are they not doing it? Star Wars should be leading the way not generally lagging behind. The ST has been a disappointment while R1 was far better and more like it.

Not sure how that undermines it. I don't think they've undermined the OT as such. If anything the OT is looking even better because what they did with their abilities at the time is looking even better compared to now. Sure they can make Crait far more impressive than Hoth but it's so clearly based on Hoth one wonders why they can't do something that in imagination is way beyond it in the first place?

 

@Qui-Riv-Brid It’s fine if you want to praise the PT for trying to create some really bizarre environments. That’s cool. But please, don’t pretend that they look real, or that the digital elements blend well with the live action elements.

Look at these images. You can’t tell me the live action characters look like they’re actually there. Well, you can, but I think your belief would be taking priority over reality in that case.





There’s a reason why the PT is still one of the go-to examples of bad CGI in film, and it’s not because of a conspiracy or because people desperately wanted to find something wrong with the movies.

 

Bizarre isn't the term I'd used. Spectacular EPIC fantasy right in line with what Lucas always wanted to do from his dreams of the first draft of The Star Wars.

Not sure in what context you mean that. Obviously we all have to pretend that it all looks real because we know that it isn't. We pretended to ourselves (suspension of disbelief) that that Tatooine was another planet and that the sets were also other planets, that people in fake looking masks were aliens, that ships could fly in space and so on. We accepted that so many things that objectively didn't really work or blend was fine because we'd never seen anything like it in conjunction with all the world building of visuals, music and sound.

It was so incredible and EPIC that we had no point of reference. As time went by and we got used to everything and aspects were bettered we saw more of the joins in the movies than before so then the SE's were done to mask those.

Then the PT came along and brought everything to another level entirely. The visual language so changed again with TPM that what once was EPIC in the OT was now epic with the PT being EPIC. Now Tatooine looked like Lucas always wanted it to with massive stadiums and a bustling spaceport. Now you could do a Theed or Otoh Gunga and actually see the Senate on Coruscant. Then from there he branched out to all the other places that exist in a GFFA with millions of worlds which aren't just exotic Earth but feel not of this world.

Now instead of just someone in an alien costume you could have Jar Jar or Watto or Sebulba actually interact as a character. Yoda now is not just a puppet to cut around and build the entire shot around but an actual character that can go anywhere and do anything. Everything could be blended together rather than separate with so many less joins showing. Ships could actually take-off and land in shot and not just cheat and cut away (which allows more world building, texture and practical effects)

They totally look like they are actually there. It is about suspension of disbelief. In reality NONE of it is real. Am I supposed to take a man in an alien mask like Greedo more seriously than Jar Jar?

I can tell you which one looks 100% more like an alien (and it's not the dude with latex on his face)

I've very rarely ever heard anyone say the CGI in the PT is "bad". Plus the fact that tons of the CGI isn't CGI at all. So then you get into this whole bizarre thing where some want practical VFX, find out that the PT is the zenith of them for Star Wars (and will NEVER be topped) then aren't quite sure where to go from there.

A great quote from The_Phantom_Calamari:

Lucas didn't use CGI just to show off; he used it because it was the best way to get his vision on the screen. So what you're actually asking is for filmmakers to intentionally limit their imaginations, all because a subset of the fan population seems to be almost ideologically opposed to suspending their disbelief when it comes to CGI. When it comes to visible matte lines, stiff rubber puppets, or obviously fake background paintings--then they're more than willing to ignore the flaws and suspend their disbelief. But never for CGI, unless it looks totally, 100% real.

Yoda was great at the time of TESB. In a movie of today it's just odd (as we saw in TLJ) it's works OK but it simply doesn't compare to a CGI Yoda that is not a puppet but a interactive character.

Compare Dex above to this guy from TFA:

Dex blends and moves and is alive while this guy is some immovable background furniture.

 

Your posts are just getting rambling now. Okay, we get it, you like how unique the environments of the prequels look. You’ve harped on that enough. You think I’m missing the point, but I’m not.

My point is that no matter how strange or massive in scale the environments look, the CGI also still clashes a lot of the time and looks fake.

“It’s all fake anyway!” is not an excuse; if it were, they could have used cardboard cutouts for the special effects. When we watch movies, we engage in suspension of disbelief. However, that suspension can be broken, resulting in the audience becoming disconnected from the experience on screen. This breakage can be caused by plot holes, contrivances, and yes, by poor special effects.

That’s why it’s a problem that Dexter Jettster and Grievous don’t actually seem to be there, that’s why it’s a problem when helmets are obviously CGed on to the clone pilots. It breaks the internal consistency of the film, taking the audience out of the experience.

It doesn’t matter how epic or unique you want your planets and aliens to look. If they don’t look good, they don’t look good. You don’t score a point when you fail a home run because, hey, you tried to do something great. You just lose.

 

Ever since the Disney acquisition I've been trying to eat myself to death but I keep pooping it all out

 

Sorry but once someone starts insulting then I know that indicates they don't like what the posts point out. It's like with the CGI that isn't CGI. Once that argument gets washed away then so does the basis of so many points.

The prequels, the OT or anything in Star Wars. The new movies simply have very little of that overall.

For you obviously that is the case. For me not at all. For some small portion of the audience that is the case while for the vast majority they don't even think about it.

It's all fake is not an excuse it's simply the reality of production. It's about them presenting something that works. Presenting an overall reality that works. ANH was the fakest movie ever outside of animated movies but the designs and motion and integration made it feel real. It still feels real now even though technically it's far inferior to every other movie. No one would actually make a Star Wars film to look like that now but it works in context because we know it's an older movie.

Yet clearly when it comes to VFX that has never happened in Star Wars because we know factually the overall audience has never had that problem.

Again this hasn't happened save for certain individuals or groups. Actually it's quite the reverse because as we know since the advent of CGI and digital film-making SF, fantasy and now superheroes movies have taken off in ways that would have been impossible before. Now they dominate the box office. Movies with far more CGI and VFX then the prequels ever had.

Dex and Grievous actually are there as far as I am concerned just like Yoda is. This nostalgia in the new movies for background characters that are "there" but do nothing is hurting them for this kinds of characters.

Again the argument made by so many is that it looks great but it's not "real". I rarely hear anyone say it doesn't look good. Their problem is that it's "all-CGI" which as with so many things with the PT doesn't really work certainly not in comparison to the Star War movies now that have as many VFX shots (or as with R1 far less) but more CGI.

I don't reward them for limiting imagination because they only want to hit singles or the odd double. Star Wars was always about hitting home runs which is abandoned now.

 

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....people assumed that art was bad if it was artificial."