PT Do you truly think the PT CGI has aged for the worse?

A criticism I see toward the PT is that there is too much CGI, and that it's best to stick to practical effects.

That practical effects age better compared to CGI. It's true that CGI gets more impressive every few years, but I don't think the CGI has gotten "worse" in the PT. To me it looks exactly the same as how I first saw it in theaters.

For me, my love of CGI vs practical depends on the narrative and universe.

For example: I don't like too much CGI in the 007 films because they made their mark for their impressive stunts.

In Star Wars I think CGI is wonderful. The worlds that we've been able to see in the PT and TCW are truly splendid for the eyes. In my view they add more to the galaxy other than the "used and worn" look. Not everything has to be the same. Some planets can be dirty, some can be pristine.

Coruscant itself is pristine, dirty and even run down in certain parts of the planet.

I think Naboo is a stunning Planet, as the CGI adds layers to the city that makes it seem larger than the limited space of say Mos Eisley.

In TFA we got lots of more "practical/realistic sets" but everything started to look the same. Perhaps due to the need for a quick production? The film itself looked great but there was a repetitive feeling to the locales.

In my opinion ROTS still looks amazing. Every planet looks fantastic, especially Felucia and Mustafar. For me, they helped to sell the broader PT story that visited many planets and introduced a lot more elements to the mix.

It's always amazing to me, to see the concept art in the behind the scenes be brought to life on the big screen.

 

The CGI in TPM and ROTS still look like they could be released in 2016. AOTC looks kind of funky in some places but it was because it was experimenting with new tech. AOTC, imo, paved the way for films like Avatar. Either way, it still looks great. Even if it doesn't hold up in 50 years, I still love the story itself and that's what's so important. Plus, for what it's worth, some of the practical effects in the OT look pretty bad. Especially the puppets in some scenes.

 

No.

 

No way. I'm sure everyone loved Jar Jar's CGI back in 1999 (the cgi, not the character ) but if they released TPM today... no, it is a Nintendo 64 graphics.

 

Disagree. The droids look great and Boss Nas looks good too. Xbox 360 graphics circa 2007 if we're being honest.

 

Cool thing about CGI is that you can go back and make it look better. PT special edition anyone?

 

I'd buy that for extended Jedi Temple raid scenes

 

The Blu Ray which made TPM Yoda consistent with AOTC and ROTS might be considered that "special edition". But George sold the company and the franchise so I think he's done.

The only changes will be to ST/Spinoff film directors who feel the need to tweak (Doubt Disney will allow this)

 

There are a couple shots in the Gungan battle on Naboo that really stick out to me as not holding up well at all. Nothing else really stands out except maybe the Nexu. And a lot of the wide shots during the Dooku fight in AOTC made the whole fight seem so impersonal. I figure that was a way to help disguise that it wasn't Christopher Lee(?) That maybe had less to do with hiding subpar special effects. The fight with Dooku in ROTS did a better job of blending things together.

 

Much of the CGI, to me, is still outstanding, and just about the best use of digital technology in any set of films, ever.

 

The CGI has hold up extremely well, especially the battledroids


And ofcourse, lets not forget the great and glorious general Grievous. One of the best CGI creations ever made IMO


and a video with battledroids.

 

I don't know if the CGI aged poorly so much as it's an evolving field and what looked good ten years ago may start to look less good as effects continue to get more sophisticated. That's definitely true of the non special edition OT.

Also, it's hard for me to separate the impression upon first viewing with "now". If it wasnt until my third viewing where I thought "gee, this scene looks a little off when I really study it," then I think the effects still did their job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If I'm being honest and not simply fan-boying out, I have to admit that it is a bit like watching video game cut scenes from about 2008ish. It runs the gamut from pretty bad, ( face replacements,) to almost unnoticeable, (Set extensions) Anything that moves looks pretty dated to my eye. Basically I'm hoping for a good special edition style revamp. They could go in and re-edit it top to bottom and update the CGI.

BTW, I VERY MUCH want a theatrical release, including puppet Yoda, to continue to remain available. (I'll always have my VHS copy. )

 

Hardly. Plenty of movies that come out now still are nowhere near it's level.

Actually TPM and AOTC hold up extremely well and ROTS has probably not been bettered. TFA certainly was somewhat regressive in that sense but then there is a total difference between having the tools and then the imagination to use those tools to their fullest.

That comes from mainly from people who have no idea what the difference between CGI and practical effects are. Many of the same ones who will swear that the PT is ALL-CGI and that no sets were built. So they know nothing and want to know nothing.

Then they have little to complain about as the PT is a practical effects extravaganza the likes of which cinema has rarely if ever seen before or since.

All effects age over time. They simply do and the distinction between practical and CGI is irrelevant.

The VFX of the OT simply aged hence the SE's to update them. ANH aged in particular hence the greater amount of work put into it. ANH aged already by the time TESB came out.

I will never get this one. This idea that the OT has this overall "used and worn" look is ludicrous. How exactly are largely barren worlds used and worn?

Naboo is mostly practical effects between locations, sets, models and miniatures, matte paintings etc as well as CGI. That is the case for planet after planet in the PT.

The reality is that CGI simply wasn't used as much to create things as some people wrongly assume. There is a difference between CGI and digitally compositing all of the practical effects elements used to create the worlds of the PT.

 

TPM and RotS had the best CGI while AotC just kinda flopped it around a bit. Personally, though, I thought that the CGI in TPM was the best out of the three. Before ILM went into their awkward, mid-2000's "liquid CGI" phase.

 

Whats your opinion about the battledroids? Does the CGI look good in your opinion?

Edit*

 

I agree with Deliveranze. The CGI in both TPM and ROTS are on par with today's efforts, but I found AOTC's CGI to be a bit unrealistic on a few parts. But as the movie progresses, it becomes less of an issue for me. Only the CGI at the beginning is "meh."

 

If there wasn't the Special Edition for the original Star Wars, especially the replacement of some scenes with the X-Wings over the Death Star , I would have said that the effects look very dated. The CGI adds for the action scenes in A New Hope hold very well today. In Empire, the practical effects still hold very well. However, it's Return of the Jedi that the effects look dated since this movie incorporated more spectacular scenes than the other two originals.

 

Pretty much like I opined in my post, anything that moved, practical and CGI, needs an update. I think the battle droids in AOTC are the low point in the trilogy's FX.

 

Interesting. I think they look amazing, just like the models they buildt for them. Wait, general Grievous moved, do you think he looked bad on screen?

 

I don't see a problem or it aging bad. It's at the level of CGI where you literally can't see a s blatent CGI like say gotham has (great show with TERRIBLE CGI)
It blends in nice and I enjoy the colors,detail and designs. Prequel haters need to stop trying to find thing to hate on with it.

The prequels happened. Nobody has a gun to your heads and forces you to keep the memory of it fresh in your mind or you to rewatch and rip it apart. people will do the same with TFA sadly and the ST. I love the CGI in all the films. Accept Snoke, that's bad CGI if anything is.

 

Any time he's interacting with his cloak could use a redo. Most of the effects in that movie look like really, really good high end video games to my eye. Nostalgia carries me through for the most part, but my 7-year old totally blows it off as video-gamey, which is what caused me to look at the effects with a new eye in the first place. I would like to see a future special edition replace any of the moving practical or CG effects with updated CG, as long as they also continue to make the theatrical releases available.

 

Agree. ROTJ aged the worst. Empire holds up immensely

 

TPM and ROTS have held up reasonable well for the most part (those battle droids in TPM still look great). AOTC unfortunately hasn't aged that well though there's still some decent effects. I don't why but the film seems have a really dated and fake feel to to it in some shots IMO.

 

Yeah, I agree. I think because AOTC was such an experiment with digital effects, it looks a bit wonky in some shots. Mostly on Geonosis. Coruscant still looks great, if not better than TPM.