Saga A Different Feel Between Trilogies?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by hanshotfirst87, Feb 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. d_arblay Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2005
    star 4
    Yes thats another point I was going to make. I would love to see the guys from ILM sit down with your average, casual PT basher who often make the case that CGI ruined the films. It would be great for them to be shown and tested on chosen examples from each of the movies, asking which elements of the scenes in question were CG or otherwise. I think you'd often find people mistaking models for CGI and perhaps more crucially, CGI for models.
  2. Cryogenic Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    Oh, I think it does. But there's the sensual experience and the intellectual one. Sensually, we need to believe that what's happening is real. Intellectually, we need to understand the artifice of that reality.

    But who would actually know or believe -- an adult, at least (and I think most kids for that matter, too) -- that Christopher Reeve isn't on wires, on a gimbal or whatever? Again, sensual/intellectual. We can FEEL the "reality" of what's happening by suspending our disbelief, but that's also what we're doing: suspending our disbelief. "Superman" is actually a very good metaphor for this because the actor really is "suspended" by something or above something. And the tagline of that original Richard Donner film was and is: "You'll believe a man can fly". Which, of course, is built on the notion that we're inherently aware that people can't fly as Superman does, yet we long to believe, too. The tension between the two gives depth and meaning to the art we partake of.

    I'm with you on almost all of this. There's a hard-nosed utilitarian aspect to the special and visual effects work in Star Wars and all film art, too. It's there because it needs to be there; and accordingly, we suspend our disbelief because we need to suspend our disbelief. Even then, however, I can't quite bring myself to say "it doesn't matter"; even though, once again, I see where you're coming from.

    "Good" and "bad" are subjective. As are preferences for some techniques over others. Just as people must allow me to be thrilled with whatever I'm thrilled by, I must allow them to stand in awe of models, puppets or whatever it is they stand in awe of. And at base level, I'm no different. One of my favourite "fantasy" films outside of Star Wars is "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (the original movie, now something of a cult item, directed by Steve Barron). To the best of my knowledge, that
  3. d_arblay Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2005
    star 4
    They would obviously understand when questioned (or to put it like this, when they were removed from the moment) that he's not really flying. But I think that would be suppressed more into the subconscious if they were unsure how exactly the illusion was being created. There's a huge sensory difference between "how is he doing that?!" and "oh yeah i know exactly how he's doing that" and they both fuel very different emotional responses from the viewer. I believe the former is the more satisfying from a film-watching perspective (depending of course on what one is looking to get out of the film*). I believe your subconscious invests far more in it. There's a reason they try and hide the wires. Applying the logic of "well c'mon nobody is really going to believe he's flying", there's no reason to try and hide it. But they do. And they do because they want to have you believe, if only subconsciously. I think you do and can believe he's flying, if the effect is done well. Just as you believe the character is real if he's performed well. To believe anything else requires one to snap out of the moment and remember who they are and what they are doing. But the art of film is to make you believe and take you into another world so to speak. I believed a man could fly when I first watched that film, sure. I don't now when I think rationally about it, of course. But I'm not meant to be thinking rationally at that point.. certainly not about how it was made or about what normal, everyday life is all about.

    * some go to the movies and enjoy them more as a tool of intellect or enlightenment - i.e. their enjoyment of the film feeds off their desire to understand, interpret and analyse the skill involved in crafting the illusion more than it does any notion that the film could be representing a reality or fantasy that seems tangible - film critics for example. In my experience, cynical, hard-nosed, overly-analytical people who are too ground in their own reality are hardly ever going to invest in a film in any other way. Each to their own. But there is a different way to enjoy film as many of us Star Wars fans know - the way I in which I think was the very intention when it all began - to enthrall and make believe... to input a sense of escapism. If one's enjoyment of a film depends on this (as I personally think it predominantly should in works such as Star Wars), then knowing the intricate details of how the shots were compiled for example, will surely, while admittedly involving oneself more with the craft, inevitably remove some connection from the material. I cant tell you I'm more connected with the material now than when I was 7. I'm not. I'm certainly more connected and appreciative of the craft and the theoretical elements they put on show... but I don't believe in it as I perhaps once did. And I can't say for sure that isn't a product in part down to my intricate knowledge of how the films were made. While I enjoy all the behind the scenes stuff, I truly wish I'd avoided it all when the PT was being made. Going into the cinema and having seen documentaries with them filming particular scenes... I found it hard connect and feel that sense of escapism I otherwise would had I not seen those moments being captured on set.

    Perhaps I'm talking contradictory nonsense. If I am, you'd be the person to figure it out :p But I feel its true for me. I might not be explaining it exactly how I would like or someone more eloquent could. But nonetheless, I feel its a valid position.
  4. Eternity85 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2008
    star 3
    Amazing, another TMNT admirer =D= I fell in love with the original movie when i was younger, it was a fantastic piece of work - and a really special kind of film; it really left its mark on me. The Shredder almost rivals Darth Vader as a villain in that movie, true badass! Still one of my favourite movies today.

    Back to the topic, i just want to say that i definitely prefer the CGI puppets of the PT over the puppet models in the OT. In this case i was very impressed with what they did. Take Watto for example, i totally believed in the character; just as i enjoyed the "new" Yoda.. I think what is right to say is that both the OT and the PT had a great impact on me, but in different ways. The OT for its simplicity and warmth; the PT for its amazing diversity and intensity.



  5. Adali-Kiri Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2000
    star 4
    CGI puppets? Like practical digital animation? :p
  6. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    While I enjoy all the behind the scenes stuff, I truly wish I'd avoided it all when the PT was being made. Going into the cinema and having seen documentaries with them filming particular scenes... I found it hard connect and feel that sense of escapism I otherwise would had I not seen those moments being captured on set.


    I don't find it hard to connect. I was too busy enjoying the story to think about the special effects that I had seen in the featurettes or read about. But that's me.
  7. Eternity85 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2008
    star 3
    Yes... exactly; :p
  8. hanshotfirst87 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Hey guys, haven't been on a while, interesting to see all the replies. As far as CG vs. practical effects I do prefer practical but come on guys how can you make a Star Wars film and not use the best FX available. I think the main problem I have (once again I'd like to stress that I really do like the PT) is AOTC and ROTS don't feel to different from one another whereas TPM has a high adventure feel to it, the other to feel depressing in ways and even though I liked ESB for being dark it wasn't depressing. Either way all six films are great and I wouldn't change them for anything (except maybe Hayden Christensen lol)
  9. apollogreed Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Oh there's a different feel between the trilogies all right. The OT makes you feel great while the prequels suck!
  10. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    Oh there's a different feel between the trilogies all right. The OT makes you feel great while the prequels suck!


    How would know about my own feelings regarding the two trilogies?
  11. primo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Teh suxxage!
    Tron legacy forever!
  12. Jedirockstar1138 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 4, 2011
    star 1
    The PT does have a different feel to it, and Episode II was easily the worst one, but as a whole I love it. Lucas even said before TPM came out that it would be different.....nobody seemed to listen.
  13. Ord-Mantell70 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 9, 2009
    star 3
    Plain right.

    People did hear that from G.Lucas, but I guess most of them, like myself, couldn't imagine how different it would look and feel from the Originals. Thus probably drawing excessive disppointment and critical bashing by some.

    It was even already more or less envisioned that way back in 1977-1978, in the aftermath of Star Wars/ANH's phenomenal success, when he basically envisioned numerous sequels or trilogies. Each film and or trilogy was to be pretty different from one another, directed by different people and thus reflecting their own feel and approach about the franchise.

    Anyway the huge time gap between production and release of the 2 trilogies (20 years) makes it almost inevitable to have an even more different feel than originally planned. Just like Godfather III compared to I and II for instance (Thanks Darth_Nub ;) ).
  14. janstett Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2004
    star 3
    I'm sure a great amount of it was intentional -- the "used universe" of the OT was very intentional and rare in sci-fi. The PT by nature would be more of a pure feel. There were small examples of the "used universe" shining through -- C-3POs patina'd cladding, for example. I'm sure the virtual nature of most sets didn't help.

    Where I think Lucas failed at least as far as the transition into the "used universe". As the Plinkett review points out, Coruscant showed almost no impact of this great galactic war. There should have been a gradual decay of the city -- traffic decreasing, buildings bombed out and falling to neglect, etc. Rome after the collapse.

    They did this very subtly with the Jedi Council chamber, as the floor slowly becomes neglected -- but it was too subtle.
  15. koolkid1455 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2011
    I do think there is a difference. The original 3 there was more space action it was a lot of physical action. In the 1st 2nd and 3rd, I think we had a more in depth view of the character's minds.
  16. Cryogenic Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    This auspicious detail isn't related to the war, per se. It's more about the Jedi's own neglect, which their involvement with the war has hastened (of its code, its practitioners, the clones enslaved within the war, the galaxy, the Force, etc.). As was superbly pointed out by TFN-er Jedi_Ford_Prefect, the PT shows that the Clone Wars are a series of engagements taking place -- for the most part -- away from the capital, because the capital is the rich, well-protected part of the Republic, the very seat of government itself, where fat politicians and rich citizens are disconnected from suffering and likely profiting from it, whether directly or simply because they can go on living epicurean lifestyles while others are fighting and dying (consider the extreme opulence of the complex Anakin enters, and all the wealthy Coruscanti are seen milling about in, for the "Darth Plagueis" passage in ROTS). Star Wars is about many things, including class divides.

    That's a good way of looking at it. I'm not sure it's entirely correct, however. On balance, it looks like there is probably more action in the PT, including space scenes. And I'm not sure we generally were presented with deeper views of the characters' minds in the PT. Possibly Anakin's. And maybe some of the other characters, including avatars of the Force like the Emperor and Yoda, came off as more human, since we saw some of their struggles and weaknesses; their humanity, if you will (ROTS is very important in this regard, I feel). That said, someone like Padme seems like a more layered character -- to me, that is -- than Leia in the OT. So, from my position, there is some truth to your statements. I think the PT has a denser story and even an air of recondition about it (again, Padme as Queen), which greatly expands the parameters of Star Wars, while being true to its basic grammar/syntax, if you will. Even if or when things are no deeper (necessarily), I would certainly say they're always at least, well... wider.
  17. Cryogenic Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 5
    P.S. I know I shouldn't double-post, but I forgot to address this before...

    Yes, my thanks to you for seeing those remarks. TMNT is probably the most atmospheric film I've ever watched, certainly in the "comic book" genre. An amazing piece of work, for me, that cleverly syncretized the original black-and-white comics, the colourful cartoon series, and 101 other sources, to make a surprisingly nuanced, affecting film. There is a deftness and a precision to the crafting of TMNT that floors me to this day. The Shredder was, indeed, brilliantly depicted in TMNT (consider the "tease" scene of him in shadow, followed by the long reveal from behind later in the movie, filmed in a menacing, unbroken crane shot set to Japanese war drums, viscerally emphasizing his dominant -- some might say archetypal -- nature). I would consider the cinematography alone to be among the best I've ever seen, rivaling the very best from that decade at least. And given the tight budget they had, what they achieved in all areas is only the more impressive. For this viewer, anyway.
  18. CoolyFett Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2003
    star 4
    I dont see it at all, and honest GL did a great job TRYING to connect all 6 chapters. He signed the actors on to multiple movies, He tried his best to make all 6 be close/related. He didnt have to do any of that. Most of the changes and repairs he made makes a lot of sense and keeps NEW FANS from asking questions. I dont hate GL like many other so called fans, that feel the certain films are belong to them, but some how others dont. As far as different feel?? Its really about the endings. Happy ending, Mystery Ending, Sad Ending, Happy Ending, Mystery/Sad Ending, Happy Ending 3 episode have happy endings, 2 are really sad and 1 ends in mystery, leaves the audience in wonder. I could easily make my own trilogy with Ep 3, 4 & 5 being those are the best 3 to me, but Ep 1, 2 & 6 are just as important to the saga.
  19. EHT New Films Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 6
    Since I mentioned different feelings between movies in my answer there, I'm copying my post from the "Single story with six parts or six individual films" thread here...

  20. DarthPhilosopher Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2011
    star 4
    Yes there is a certain divergence between the atmosphere of both trilogies... However I think these have logical explanations:

    1. The years in which the films were made factors in significantly. I assign many of the visual differences to the fact that each film was filmed in a different year (years) and as such each film reflects that particular year. TPM clearly has the vibe of a late 90's film, ANH 70's, ROTS '05, etc, etc. Likewise if there were more films made they would have a different vibe and theme than the PT. This is mainly due to the influences upon the artistry, workmanship and the level of the animation and visual effects. It is difficult to get a 2000's film to have the same visual style as a 70's film... simply because influencing factors in concept artwork, etc, all contribute.

    2. These trilogies are two very distinctively separate halves to a singular story. One being on the grand and epic scale (PT) centralizing around galactic governance, philosophy and war, whilst the other half follows the mind and plight of Luke, who is seeing the galaxy from the gritty and small-scale of the Rebellion. Likewise if there was a ST I would imagine it would return to the PT stylization.

    3. These are two different timeframes of galactic history. One is the monumental grandure of the Galactic Republic, in the sense of Ancient Rome, and the other is like the 'scorched Earth' following the Apoclypse, in the sense of the Middle Ages. One is a time of pure mythology and classical art, whilst the other is in the middle of galactic tyranny and oppression. Likewise, in a hypothetical ST one would return to the forme of the two perceptions of the galaxy.



    I would also like to note that I found TPM to be realistic in the sense of the OT, ROTS to be realistic in the sense of wondrous digital animation, and AOTC to be almost 'plasticy'.
  21. bluesaber70 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2007
    star 2
    The different feel between them is the OT had never been done bfore. There was no movie made at the time those films came out that was like them.

    The PT had a been there done that feel to it.
  22. Pendulous_Dewlap Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2011
    star 1
    Yeah, the PT feels looks, feels, and smells exactly like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo. Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back are magical.
  23. Grand_Moff_Jawa Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2001
    star 5
    There is an enormous difference in feel between the two trilogies. This is why I can't see all six movies as a saga. The OT had a more sincere, almost documentary feel to it. The PT is summer blockbuster popcorn shtick. I had zero emotional investment in any of the PT characters. Not even Threepio and Artoo. Yoda was a caricature of himself. It's like someone who doesn't really know Yoda wrote his lines. The FX were so fan-boy in nature as to completely throw me out of the movie at times. And Anakin's fall to the dark side? Don't even get me started on how disappointing that was.

    So yeah, there's a huge difference in feel to the two trilogies. IMO, one has feelings while the other does not.
  24. PTisgreat Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2011
    I like that there is a different 'feel' between the trilogies, even the movies too in many respects. It gives alittle variety, and helps you see them as standalone movies, because most fans like me only watch one movie at a time, and can't watch a marathon all day!

    A trilogy like Lord of the Rings, you almost have to watch all 3 movies in one sitting because they really don't have a definite ending as they lead RIGHT into the next one. SW movies are made to be watched as 6 movies, but each one has a particular ending that can be looked at as a standalone movie.

    I hope that makes sense!:)
  25. CoolyFett Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2003
    star 4
    Revenge of the Sith & A New Hope I always watch back to back they go great together.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.