Do you think you would still like the PT as much if Lucas used the OT Special Effects?

Not as they were lined up on the starters block...Inside the "garage", ok. As they were trying to complete Anakins? Ok. But, when they are actually at the racetrack, CGI all the way.

 

Maybe they used more models, but the PT looks much less realistic, and that's all that matters.

 

I love the PT and I watch it for the story also. I am sick and tired of people complaining about the special effects. News flash for some younger fans who or older fans who have a short memory when they were making the OT in 70's and 80's the special effects used back than were cutting edge and GREAT for the time, Star Wars has always used the best technology. I find the PT and the OT to be equals though, I only evaluate Star Wars as a saga not two separate trilogies. As Lucas said, "All movies are fake." Whether it?s a cgi background or an old fashion wood and paint mock-up of New York City. It's still fake. Movies are people pretending to be someone that they aren't in a place where they are not. When you begin to argue over the level of fakeness in movies it becomes absurd. The truth of the matter is that CGI does not make a movie nor does it ruin a movie, if your only leg to stand on is to criticize the CGI, your argument is baseless!

 

^Great post.

 

Everybody knows that. Ever heard of the willing suspension of disbelief?

The whole point of watching a movie is to escape the real world.

CGI ruined ROTS because almost every scene had CGI in it. CGI should only be used where it has to be used.

Special effects can make or break a movie if it's a type of movie that was meant to have special effects.

 

Turbo,

Every scene in Episode III was ruined because of CG? Hell, every scene in the Prequels had an element of CG in it. So, is the entire Prequel Trilogy ruined because of the use of CG?

That's a ridiculous statement.

 

The reason that T2 and JP look better than the PT, is because the T-1000 and dinos were the only CGI in them. The artists had less to focus on, so they could take more time to get it right.

Quality over quantity.

With ROTS, almost every scene had a very prominent use of bad CGI combined with bad digital filming.

 

Turbo,

That's your opinion, not fact.

As for the use of CG, you basically wanted the Prequels to have the claustrophobic look and feel that the Originals do. You want Lucas to limit his vision just because you personally feel that CG can't match the "real".

 

About what? Quality over quantity, or ROTS overuse of CGI?

The OT does not have a claustrophobic look in any way. I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Turbo,

The overuse of CG in Episode III.

 

There is a clear overuse. CGI should not be used in such amounts unless you are going to take the extra time to get it right. And it doesn't look even close to right.

Have you read this yet?

 

Turbo,

So, using 18 months on post-production to perfect the CG isn't enough time? They do the best they can, with the technology and skill they have available. The post-production process on the Prequels is far longer than the "other" trilogies.

Give me an example of overuse in Episode III...

 

With ROTS, CGI was used in many places where physical effects would have done the job much better.

The CGI in the PT has an ultra smooth, ultra precise quality that makes it easy it tell that it's fake, and that quality is enhanced a lot by the digital filming.

All of ROTS feels like it was vacuumed clean. It feels much too sterile, and so does the acting and plot.

The movie would have been much more absorbing and interesting if physical effects had been used, and the actors probably would have done a better job if they had more on set to react to.

CGI should only be used where nothing else can create the desired effect.

The physical effects in the OT only look dated because they didn't have today's technology for assistance.

Digital compositing can remove matte lines, and modern animatronics can make puppets move better.

Simulated reality will never look as good as true reality. With physical effects, you're looking at real light, real shadows, and real textures.

We know that it's all fake in the broader sense, but physical effects are much more pleasing to look at, and they can do almost as much as CGI can.

 

Turbo,

The visual look of the Prequels and the color palette reflected a more "civilized age" of Star Wars. He took the fact that he had to write the Original Trilogy around the special effects and used it as a story point in the Prequels. We see two different eras in the Skywalker storyline; the last age of the Republic and the "dark times."

Essentially, Lucas opened up the world of the Star Wars. In this case, it takes digital technology, mixed with the other special effects technology to make the Prequels have the desired visual look.

Somtimes, there is just no other way to create the desired look without digital technology. You can't go to Mustafar. You can't go to Utapau. You can't go to Coruscant. What you try to do is make it as photoreal as possible with the best techniques.

In most cases, they used every technique possible. Mustafar is a great example of real location photography, plate photography, sets, models, CG, and digi-matte paintings. What more can you ask of them? You could've had it all in doors but we've been the route before. It's called the Original Trilogy. It's called writing around the technology.

Look at Kashyyyk. It's most plate photography and models spliced together to realize that world. He couldn't achieve it for Return of the Jedi. This is why we have Endor and Ewoks. And yet, Kashyyyk looks just as realized as Endor...just a bit more fantastical which was the desired look anyway.

Look, there are times when I wonder why Lucas didn't build a set for a specific scene and more often than not, it comes back to money. One of Lucas' objectives in the Prequels was to show that you don't have to brake the bank in order to fully realize a world. Both Episodes II and III were produced for 100 million, and yet they look better than most 150 million and up films that Hollywood produces every summer. It just takes alot of techniques and time to achieve that and they did extremely well with the Prequels.

Episode III had more of everything you wanted; more sets, more models. The only thing it didn't have was on location shooting, but considering where they mostly go (Coruscant), location shooting isn't needed. It's like The Empire Strikes Back. It's all sets.

We can agree to disagree on the use of digital photography. Personally, I like the look of film. But, I also like the film-like look of digital. Lucas choose it to push the technology and for financial reasons, which made sense to him. He saved money doing it and yet produced the best looking, in terms of design and realization, Star Wars film....Revenge of the Sith.

 

Here we go again ? OT vs PT. *sigh*

Personally, I have never watched a Star Wars movie for the special effects. I?ve watched them because I love being transported to that mythical galaxy far far away and the story of the characters that inhabit there. When I was ten years old in 1977 watching the original for the first time, I wasn?t sitting there saying ?Wow, that?s such a cool set that they spend millions of dollars on and took ages to build" and "WOW, look at that model space ship!" Similarly, when Star Wars returned in 1999, I took to the cinema again and was again transported to that galaxy for the back story and the characters therein. I wasn't sitting there saying "WOW! Look at that CGI! That's AMAZING!" or "Hang on, is that a model or is it CGI, I can't tell!"

CGI ruined ROTS because almost every scene had CGI in it. CGI should only be used where it has to be used.

If CGI ruined ROTS as you say, can you please explain to me why I was crying my eyes out during most of the final hour of this movie?? It certainly wasn?t because I was disappointed with the overuse of CGI I can tell you! And also, why is it when I watched the originals again after viewing ROTS, I found myself crying at certain sections of ANH and ALOT during ROTJ?? I?ve never cried watching these movies and they are my two favourite Star Wars movies!!

The movie would have been much more absorbing and interesting if physical effects had been used, and the actors probably would have done a better job if they had more on set to react to.

You obviously don?t go to the theatre where the craft of acting is in its truest form. There are no cuts or no second takes or breaks for lunch!! The actor is there in front of a live audience and it?s all GO from beginning to end. Some of the best acting I?ve seen has been on a stage where the only thing else on the stage has been a chair and a table. And please, please, don?t start with the acting of the PT vs OT again....

Honestly, if you want a fair assessment on the work ILM and the model shop did during the Prequels, just pick up "Creating the Worlds of Star Wars 365 days." It's an absolute must-own if you're really interested in this kind of stuff.

I bought this book too and it is incredible (except for the fact it weighs a bloody ton) Alot of the fans who complain about the CGI should read this book!


CJedi?s question for this thread was an interesting one. Most of it I have answered above. However, I would beg the question - Why use 70/80?s technology to make the PT in this day and age??? The special effects in the originals were ground breaking for their day and as such the special effects used in the Prequels are ground breaking for today. Why turn back time? If you wanna take that view about the effects in the prequels, then couldn?t the same be said about the originals. After all, the inspiration for Star Wars was the serials of the 1930?s and Flash Gordon etc. [sacrasm] HEY, why didn?t Lucas in 1977, use the technology of the 30?s to recreate the effects? No, he decided to be all flashy and create ground breaking effects and create ILM and change the way the world looks at movies! What a selfish man he is! [sacrasm] Hhhhhhmmmm.....

 

no, only cg during the race, search on the net you will find photos of the grid.And maybe most of them cg in the hangar

 

I'll go with you on that one, but surely there's a way to create an immaculate world without making it look fake.

There may have been less CGI in those scenes than most people think, but it does not look real because of the CGI that is in them plus the digital filming.

Alien used only miniatures and sets, and the planet/ship that the crew landed on and explored looked quite out of this world. I'm sure that Kashyyyk could have been made in the same manner.

Maybe so, but I'll say it once more. The added CGI and digital filming drowned out any realism that was present.

 

Turbo,

Alien may have used more sets and models but again, it's a very claustrophobic film. That was the desired affect for that film. With the Originals, that wasn't the desired effect when he started the process but he used it to his advantage from a storytelling perspective.

With the Prequels, Lucas wanted to open up the world of the Star Wars. Star Wars is more than steel, cold corridors and desert planets. It can, and is now, more fantastical, with more worlds, more technology, and more civilizations.

And to do alot of that, he had to use CG, along with the techniques that got him there. Even if he shot Episodes II and III on film, the look wouldn't have changed. If you blend it correctly, everything works. And in the Prequels, Lucas was 90% affective in blending the technology to get the desired look.

I'm actually surprised you don't like Episode III more, in terms of look. It's the one prequel film that looks most like the Original Trilogy in terms of design and atmosphere. The only difference is the color palette. But, it does detoriate once the circumstances get dire and dire.

 

I don't find it claustrophobic at all.

ROTS's visual style doesn't feel anything like the OT to me, and the movie itself isn't very good.

 

I just remembered the perfect example. 2001: A Space Odyssey

It's just as immaculate as ROTS, but no CGI is used.

It is claustrophobic, though.

 

I honestly think i'd like them better if they'd used the OT special effects. I love that nitty gritty feel the Original Trilogy films have.

I'm not knocking the CG animation because I personally adore the art and beauty of it. Its amazing what they were able to create with a computer, simply amazing! But you can't beat the authentic look of the Original Trilogy. Alot of love, hard work, and time went into every prop and costume and they all look so realistic (atleast from my POV.) The fact that everything is actually touchable, that i could feel it with my own hands, amazes me and makes me love the OT. Which is why i believe had the PT been done with that same effort i would have enjoyed it that much more.


-great topic by the way!-

 

yes, i care about the story not the Special effects.

 

Don't forget BladeRunner.

 

I tried watching the director's cut some years ago, and I found it too boring.

My tastes have changed a bit now though. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

Also, I just finsihed watching T3 yestetrday, and it uses CGI even better than T2.

There is some slight overuse in a few places, but otherwise it's great!

 

the flaw in the use of CGI in the PT is that in some spots i can tell there is no texture, no physical quality to the items being rendered by computer.

the most glaring example to me in RotS come durring some of the wide shots, there is a sequence with clones shortly after they appear on Utapu(sp?) where it's painfully obvious, also Yoda at times looks like a 2 dimentional cartoon to my eyes.

i can forgive this and look past it but it is more glaring than errors in physical effects because instead of being able to see the flaw the first time you see the film all that happens is your eye realizes that what you are looking at is not there.

on a concious level we're all aware of that, but we never want the "suspension of disbelief" broken.

it is that ability to suspend disbelief that makes all the difference, and it is why that post above about how all movies are "fake" is both pointless and not very insiteful in my opinion.

there are also scenes where the effects look great but what is being done with them is beyond the scale of what i can accept, Anakin's "hulk jump" durring the duel is the worst example in RotS.

these things should not be in a film because they snap a person like me right out of the film and leave us looking around the theater to see if anyone else realized how "bad" that sequence was.

at that moment that part of whatever film i'm watching has failed as a movie. This is a critical thing.

these points will no doubt be cleared up and corrected where the effects can be over time, i have a good eye for detail but lucas has a better one and i'm sure he sees them.