Did AOTC turn Star Wars into a science experiment?

Ok I'm done here. It just going around and around and nothing new has been said.

We will just agree to disagree. I hope.

I will say one last thing though.

Practical effects work could've produced a better result

Yeah only if they were not showing any oeacn that had waves you would only see in a hurricane. They only way to get those size waves are to A) Go find a hurricane. or B) CGI the waves.

The waves they showed were the kind of waves you would find in a
hurricane. Heck in the movie the prefect Strom. There are parts they had to CGI the whole thing. Exmpale the 100 foot+ tall wave was all CGI. There is no way you can get that on a real set. And they are not going to go out into the ocean to do that ether.

 

Miniatures combined with traditional waterwork. WETA did it with the flooding of Isengard in TTT. ILM could've done it with AOTC.

 

Why use newer technology when older techniques will do the job better?

I've got no problem with using CGI when it's needed (see: Coruscant). What I have a problem with is using it solely for the purpose of being able to say "we did it digitally". Digital FX are a tool like any other. They aren't inately superior to the tools of old simply because they've come along afterwards.

Now either contribute something meaningful to the discussion or go back under your bridge, troll.

 

The entire point is moot anyway. We're never going to know how much better AOTC supposedly would have looked with less CGI, so why keep going back and forth?

 

We don't know that real water would look more real? ?

 

We know that a few gallons of real water would look better than digital water?

With digital, you don't have to worry about matching the lighting, matching the camera moves, etc. And I don't see what's wrong with the water, but that's probably because it's dark, so it's hard to really get a good look. It looked good enough for me though.

Cometgreen

 

Yes, a few gallons of real water would look more real. See, they shoot it up close so it appears larger than it actually. That's the whole concept behind the miniature you know.

 

Gary Kurtz noted something interesting from Roger Corman about film making. If you can get the same emotional impact from something done cheaper/easier than do it because you can spend that extra time/money on something else.

 

I for one thought it was stupid to make Yoda a CGI character. He has always been a puppet and always should have been.

The Kaminoans were okay, but not great.

The Separatists were a big disappointment. Look at Shu Mai. The only realistic thing about her is her gold-plated hat. The rest is horrible. Wat Tambor only looked good because he was mostly metal. But the worst one of all was San Hill. He looked like a color pencil drawing. He was absolutely the worst professional done CGI character I've ever seen. Poggle the lesser and the other Geonosians were the best of this bunch by far.

Dexter Jettster was another bad idea. They should have just used a human actor instead of a CGI charcter.

 

Eeth, can't disagree with you more. SW was *always* meant to look over the top, surrealistic. All of those characters are perfectly rendered to fit the aesthetic of the film. The Kaminoans are amazing on any level. This is like faulting the animation on Thumper because he doesn't move like a real rabbit.

 

Darth_Insidious: A few gallons of real water shot up close wouldn´t look like a raging sea from afar; It would look like a few gallons of water up close.
The CG water is perfect. It looks like a sea and that´s what it´s supposed to look like.
They don´t use CG to be able to say they used CG, BTW. They use it because it´s easy and cheap and gives a good result.

 

No, a few gallons of water shot up close wouldn't look like what it is if done correctly. It's like saying a model ship will look like a model ship, or a miniature castle will look like a miniature castle. That's perhaps one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here, and that is truly saying a lot.

See the flooding of Isengard in The Two Towers for a perfect example of miniatures and waterwork made to look real, or the parting of the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments.

There's a difference between something looking unrealistic and something looking like it doesn't belong there, Lensman. Nobody would ever mistake Yoda in ESB for a real creature, but they can but into it because he looks like he's really *there*. By contrast, San Hill looks like he doesn't belong in the shot, doesn't look like he's there. He looks like what he is; a digital character put in in post. Watto was digital, but he looked believable. You can buy into his performance and existance. The same for Poggle.

 

There are big differences between water and handmade models, Insidious.
Even if they could make it look real, it would be a more difficult and expensive way of reaching the same result as what they got with CG.

 

Not necessarily more expensive. And the whole point is that it isn't the same result, it's a better one.

 

@ MyKe

 

Insidious: The result we got is perfect.

 

No, it isn't. A perfect result would look perfectly real, which it didn't. Just another example of superfluous use of CGI when it wasn't needed.

 

Here we go, back into the opinion/fact mix-up.

Cometgreen

 

Comet, how about this? It would've looked fake to less people if it had been done with real water, as real water can't look like it was artificially created. Can we agree on that?

Myke, please, don't ruin this thread with that terrible dialogue. Even when it's altered it still groan-inducing.