PT Did the PT use too much CGI?

I just recall how fake the backdrops looked in many of the shots in AOTC. It was improved a little in ROTS but even in movies today greenscreen can become a really ugly eyesore. The best example is the new Hobbit trilogy, which was freaking awful on about every level, including its over-reliance on CGI and ridiculous video game action scenes that went on too long and only helped to accentuate the awfulness of the CGI in it.

 

The Hobbit is like someone made a caricature of bad CGI..... except it's unfortunately not intended as a caricature. I still can't believe the same guy mode LOTR and the Hobbit

 

I do... LOTR movies were pretty medicore in my opinion. Underdeveloped/diminished characters, bad writing (whenever the writers thought they could write better than Tolkien), spotty acting, and CGI that looked fake even in 2001 along over the top melodrama, etc. Gollum is the best character that steals the show (but not enough to make me watch them ever again). The fans didn't take PJ to task for unnecessary changes and he believed in his own hype and decided was a better storyteller than Tolkien. The Hobbit should have been one 3-hour movie and it would have been great.

 

Let's just say that I couldn't disagree with you more on the LOTR movies... they aren't perfect but I find it very hard to imagine anyone doing much better under the constraints of the bid budget film system

 

I don't think it's that people are stupid for "wanting it both ways"--I think this speaks to some of Lucas's weaknesses as a director. I've had plenty of managers in my lifetime that micromanage me in some areas and fail to give helpful direction in others. It's frustrating and confusing, and impacts the quality of my work.

It's not that I as an employee want it both ways, or that the actors want it both ways. I would much prefer to work with/for someone with effective communication skills that can deliver their direction in a consistent and predictable way. I can see how some of the actors may have had mixed experiences with Lucas. He is notorious for micromanaging his projects but at the same time you hear the actors famously complain--albeit perhaps a bit jokingly and affectionately--that Lucas did struggle with direction and working with the actors. I am quite sure he improved on this by the time he made the PT, but I think poor and inconsistent direction impacted actor performances significantly. Couple that with lots of green screen work for the actors, and I think many of them did not live up to their talent.

That being said, I think that the CGI doesn't work for me specifically when it comes to environment and characters that the actors directly interact with. The cities, landscapes, space battles, etc were all spectacular and really made the prequels a visually rich experience for that. The things that felt cartoon-like were the sheer number of shots where the only real things were the actors--and perhaps a prop or two. It was like watching Wall-E or Monsters Inc with a handful of live actors thrown in for good measure.

It doesn't mean that the visuals weren't amazing, haven't aged well, that the people working on them weren't spectacularly talented.

I find it absurd to blame the actors for their poor performances--"They didn't realize his method" is a cop out. It is the director's job to get the actors to give a good performance. If the actors aren't understanding your method, then it's your job as a director to change your method. In another thread I read a bunch of people saying how people are basically not allowed to dislike Jake Lloyd because his painfully awful performance wasn't his fault. So which is it--is it the actors' fault for not understanding their director, or the director's fault for not working more effectively with the actors?

I do appreciate this forum for the quality posts that help me appreciate the prequels more. After all, the PT and its fans are members of the same fandom and we all need to learn to get along. but I do get frustrated when having a discussion turns into a game of whack-a-mole as certain members try to explain away consistent complaints about the films, which often results in oft-cited arguments that become contradictory.

 

I do have to say, the Hobbit would have been much better as one 3 hour film with a different director. I would rather they have waited another ten years if necessary in order to find the right director for the project.

That being said, you can't knock them for diminishing characters in an epic mythologic universe spanning thousands of pages.

 

Agreed. II honestly think that had Jackson made each movie 6-7 hour pure lift of the book, people would have called him a hack with no imagination. Frankly, there's no pleasing everybody. I still maintain that LotR is still one of the greatest cinematic epics in my life time, on par with the Godfather movies, or the SW OT.

 

The problem with too much CGI that those movies tend to be too "perfect" : no blood, no sweat, no tears, no rust, no dust, no filth. Perfect settings, perfect choreography, perfect computerized everything.

That said, I enjoyed the story of the PT, even if I was baffled by Lucas choices (Jar Jar, the endless pod race, etc, etc)

 

CGI doesn't always mean clean.

Take a look at these:



See the dirt and scuff marks?

Or how about this:



Look at all the smoke and dust being blown up.

 

Honestly, I don't.

 

Including Harrison Ford and he didn't have to do anywhere near the amount of prequels actors. As I said the part that seems to always get left out is that they have difficulty at first then get used to it. I guess they don't do much stage work as there you get even less to work with than on a movie. Far less actually.

What is also left out is all of the reference tools they get in terms of what is going on around them from art to sculptures etc.

The difficulty on ANH was that Lucas didn't communicate to them as a director's actor. They want to feel they are THE most important thing on a movie. In Star Wars movies they are simply one of many important things. They can't hear the musical moods Lucas is thinking of that will support their performances to degree that most other movies don't do.

The problem again is that there are far too many articles out there where people highlight the negative aspects at the start the actors perceived but don't follow through on the overall process.

This is like saying that Harrison Ford thought the dialogue of ANH was terrible and you can write this but can't say it. This can be tied in with the other imaginary aspects the OT actors talked about not enjoying or but then came to understand it.

It's funny how the very same fans who cite "problems" of this kind on TPM which led to performances they didn't like don't have the same reaction to the same kind of "problems" on ANH. From the actors perspective who hadn't done work of this kind both experiences would be odd at first.

Then of course there is the nonsense that they cite about how their were no sets at all and it was all screens and they didn't go to any locations which just makes them look foolish and shows that they really are saying that to effect others not because they really think that.

So really they didn't like the movie (unlike the other 99% of the audience) so they are looking for a reason that they can't center on.

As I have said many times it's simply bizarre. On the one hand for thos that despise the movies so much why spend the last 16 years now going on about it? It makes no sense to waste that time and energy.

One would also assume that if they despise the movies so much they wouldn't keep watching them over and again? Correct?

Yet for people who despise movies that we assume they have rarely watched and not for many, many years they claim to have an extensive knowledge of both what is in the movies themselves as well as the making of the movies.

Except of course over and again they show they don't have this knowledge because they still seem to think that midi-chlorians are the Force, that Jedi are taking blood counts every 5 minutes and they want the Force to be more mystical yet Anakin Skywalker whose life is the very definition of a mystical birth and destiny is something they totally despise.

The want practical effects, practical creatures, practical sets etc and the PT gives it to them in droves. Far, far more than the OT ever possibly could and yet they totally ignore that and pretend none of that happened and say to themselves it was all-CGI.

They then complain about the fully interactive "living and breathing" CGI creatures that run rings around what any puppet can possibly do but then wax on about said stationary puppets as being real because they are actually there never mind they can't actually interact with the actors like actual actors. So really they want less interactivity.

Well apart from blood (of which there is very little in Star Wars) the rest like sweat, tears, rust, dust, filth etc are all in the PT. Much more than the OT actually.

I don't see how the perfect analogy works. It's like comparing The Invisible Hand to anything from the Empire. As far as imperfect goes it's a hands down win for TIH.

This is one of the things that baffles me. The PT is by far the actual model of the used universe ethic because there are things that exist and are used. In the OT we don't have much at all in the way of civilizations to be used. It's mostly barren planets.

 

Umm... YES.

 

Thats one scene, just like the Lando and Han scene in RotJ. Doesnt mean that the rest of the movie looks like that.

 

All scenes at the Jedi Temple look awful. Especially when Obi-Wan is walking to the youngling training room. And the Kamino scenes of course.

 

But the jedi youngling training room was a practical set, and Jangos apartment was also a practical set. And Kamino was also made out of miniatures, both the inside and the outside. Not to mention the platform that was also practical.

 

That brings up another point I like to make - "Too much CGI" isn't what people are complaining about. They are complaining about thinks looking "fake" or "out of place" regardless of the method used for the scene.

As I said before, I have my criticisms of the PT... but other than a few scenes complaining about things look fake isn't one of them since IMO we do get so much stuff that does look awesome that I'm fully willing to accept the trade-off

 

I was talking about the scene when he's walking towards the youngling room in the temple, and those corridors of Kamino.

 

Do you mean this shot?



It looks fine to me. There's a nice reflection effect by the statue, and all the shadows work well.

And which Kamino corridors do you mean, because a lot of those were miniatures.

 

IDK about you but this shot isn't the least bit convincing.


And miniatures or not, neither is this.

 

BTW, for anyone who thinks practical effects are always better try comparing the ridiculously awful original TPM puppet yoda to the vastly superior TPM CGI yoda from the update.



That puppet is actually significantly worse than the TESB one (which I actually still think is great... but that's another topic)

 

I don't mind the Kamino shot, but I won't deny the first one is kind of bad. (I think the problem is my mind can instantly tell the lighting is off in the first one)

 

The Jedi Temple looked much more impressive in Episode 3 though, although the design is still incredibly bland imo.

 

I don't believe in "too much CGI" given that I like some films that are fully computer generated. As for the look of the PT, it's one of my favorite examples of visual world-building, paying respect to the used future look of the OT where appropriate, while also expanding the Star Wars style into new territory. Sometimes that came in an alien or exotic form, and other times the PT visuals spoke of a mannered opulence that previously I was much more likely to associate with a period costume drama than a SF adventure film. Sometimes it did all of these things at once!

Even if a CG shot here and there is showing its age a bit, give me a Naboo or a Kamino or Coruscant any day over some rocks and trees. Don't get me wrong, I love rocks and trees, but I can see that stuff without straying too far from my backyard.

 

Well that is your view.

To me they are all rather awesome.

I find it totally convincing in every way possible.

There you are in a GFFA and you are seeing incredible, impossible things that can't exist on Earth.

The above and similar shots are a combination actors on sets plus masks, models and miniatures, matte paintings as well as CGI.

The lighting isn't "off" at all. The amount of time they spent to get the lighting correct to the environment they were creating was one of the major step forwards in terms of light diffusion.

The thing that is "wrong" is that now they can get it far more correct and natural while movies of the past couldn't as they didn't have the means.

 

darskpine10 I've always loved that shot of the intense fighting in the dust storm. It looks so good still.