PT As an adult, has watching the reaction of young kids to Jar Jar changed your opinion of Jar Jar?

This is amazing.

 

I'm guessing more sets and miniatures were built for the PT just because of the scope and budget of it, and CGI would often augment those shots. They may have built a higher total number of them, but since the OT had no CGI practically all of their sets and ships were built. Some things like the Death Star tractor beam control were partially built but filled in with matte painting later, but not the ability to create entire scenes with a computer. I'm aware they built some sets and miniatures for the PT, just because they did doesn't meant that the film is not overwhelmingly CGI. Some of those miniatures they should have just made CGI anyway, as they were just swallowed up in CGI shots. Ewan McGregor seems to think he spent a lot of time in front of a green screen. ()

I don't hate the PT by the way. I saw each of them in the theater about 3 times, because they were still Star Wars. And even though it was very different, it was still cool. After I got over my initial disappointment with Ep. 1 that is. I wasn't expecting such a change, but I got over it and enjoyed each of them to an extent. I've never been one to defend them though, and as I've gotten older I've gotten more critical, but still watch them from time to time. Maybe more so lately with the release of Ep. VII. Because it's closer to what I like out of Star Wars than the PT I guess. I get carried away sometimes, but those films are frustrating sometimes.

 

Your ignorance is coming to a point of irritation. Go read through the thread.

The only truly CGI shots in the PT is the opening scene in ROTS. EVERYTHING else uses models. Ships, tanks, you name it.

 

I've seen the movies, I don't need to read the thread. Yes there were sets, and they built things. But the end result looks like it came mostly out of a computer. So they shot some outdoor scenes by a hut or whatever, followed by 20 minutes of CGI. They'd build a model, but put it in such a CGI heavy shot that you'd never guess it were a model. And there's no need to go off about ignorance. Just settle down. Or stop talking to me if I'm so irritating.

 

Have you even seen the video breaking down some of TFA's visual effects?:

https://www.facebook.com/rotjeditdroid/videos/880775168703614/?pnref=story

There is absolutely TONS of CGI in that movie and less practical work than in the PT. Hell, they didn't even use a single ship model in TFA and you're criticizing the PT for its use of CGI?

Ridiculous.

 

The CGI in TFA is way less intrusive in my opinion,. I don't mind CGI, just used sparingly. I could have done without the CGI monster in TFA, and I have no clue why Snoke is a CGI/motion capture thing, but I guess Andy Serkis has to work somewhere. The reason they didn't use ship models in TFA is probably because it was pointless, it was pointless to do it in the PT. I think they built them because they could, and it's George and he likes to tinker with models and crap, but all they did was put the model into shots so crammed with CGI, and blended into it, that they look CGI themselves. They should have saved the effort and just made them CGI. It's really neat they built models of Naboo and Geonisis, but they crammed them full of so much CGI that the whole shot looked fake. They wasted that painstaking practical work they did.

 

Okay, let me get this straight. You criticize the prequels for barely having any sets, meaning the actors can't act properly because of the lack of sets. Now that we show you they did use plenty of sets, you say they shouldn't have bothered in the first place?

Also, green/blue screen =/= CGI. The OT used plenty of blue screens for example, in fact i believe Carrie Fisher said something earily similar to Ewan McGregor in an RotJ interview

IMO CGI should be used to help the imagination to come alive on the big screen. The prequels look amazing and a lot of shots wouldn't have been possible without CGI. CGI helped the prequels expand the universe, thanks to great model work and great CGI.

Also, CGI isn't cheap. I have no idea where you got the idea that the only reason they used models was because George "liked to tinker with models and crap".

 

So let me get this straight:

You come to a PT fan forum to criticize the PT for its use of CGI whilst praising TFA. When it's pointed out to you that TFA actually used just as much CGI as the prequels and, in fact, used less practical effects, you then change your tune to say that practical effects are "pointless" when CGI can be used instead?

Are there any mods in the house? Seriously, this is a perfect example of trolling if ever I've seen one.

 

Man...I'm drunk, this thread has derailed to the greatest extent of crapstorm and I'm still hungry.

@Seagot where art thou????

 

Are you a troll or just that dense?

 

I would recommend just letting it go. Some people have heard a lot of Ant-PT, Anti-Lucas stuff on the Internet, and they feel like know-it-alls, and these newbs like to come onto forums to tell everyone there that they know nothing about Star Wars when, in reality, of course, we know a ton about the PT because we've spent a lot of time talking about it and what were sharing is based on actual facts about how it was made.

I mean, if someone wants to believe that Kurtz's word is the gospel truth, a guy who was fired by GL in 1979 (before writing for RTOJ even began) for going way over-budget on TESB with Lucas's own money and then became so resentful and desperate to get another job in Hollywood (and mostly failed at that) that he made up some false history where he and Lucas were "co-creators of ANH and TESB," then let that guy believe that false reality. Yeah, Han's death really would have hurt toy sales. The money was in expensive vehicles like AT-ATs ($50) and the Falcon ($35) (and more new vehicles were introduced in TESB than ROTJ); plus, Han's death probably would've boosted sales of his $2 action figure, not hurt them.

At some point, you have to ask yourself, "Is this person a guy I want to continue communicating with? Or do I think he's a jerk or a moron or a totally biased-hater or some of all 3?" And if you think he's any one of these last 3, why would you want to keep communicating with him? I'd prefer to ignore that guy, so that sooner or later he'll just go away and start bugging other people.

 

Can't stop laughing at that gif

 

You are strong and wise.

 

Uh-oh, let's hope he doesn't start decapitating children.

 

I didn’t vote in the poll because I haven’t watched TPM with kids. But personally, even though I’ve never liked Jar Jar, he doesn’t really bother me that much either. His humour is just not the kind of humour I happen to enjoy, and the character is pretty clearly geared towards young kids, and since I’m not part of that target group the character does nothing for me. But I know that lots of kids (and some adults) find him funny, and I also know I’m not entitled to have a movie custom-tailored to my particular taste, so I’m fine with the character. I find the over-the-top “I HATE JAR JAR BINKS HE RUINS THE PREQUELS GEORGE LUCAS DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD!!!1111” hate kind of immature, really. I mean, you don’t have to like everything in a movie, but I think an adult should be able to accept the fact that a movie may be trying to appeal to other people too and not just you, and that means there might be characters that aren’t even supposed to appeal to you because they’re made for a totally different target audience.