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

Why do people keep saying that the CGI is too similar to a videogame? If you want something that looks like a videogame, watch Zack Snyder's filmography. It's quite obvious Snyder was influenced by them.

I simply haven't seen videogame CGI comparable to the work of ILM. Videogames and Films are different mediums, comparing elements like CGI isn't fair because films and videogames use them in different ways.

 

I do not think the CGI in the PT has aged for the worse.
Looks just as great to me now as ever. The few minor CGI issues (see AOTC) do not detract from the overall beauty of this trilogy.
ROTS looks incredible! Better than ever on the BD boxset.

 

Some yes but others no.

The Clone Troopers are the best. I never knew they were all CGI until someone pointed it out in an argument.

 

I agree with anyone saying TPM feels more organic than Ep2 and Ep3. Ep2 has decent visuals for the most part, except for some interior Jedi Temple shots that didn't age well. Ep3 you can tell they were really pushing the envelope and using the best of what was available at the time. Still looks great for the most part.

 

Surprise, surprise but I feel AOTC holds up tremendously. It isn't that everything is entirely convincing in a real-world sense, but the effects fit the aesthetic of the film. Nothing seems distracting or feels out of place. Now in ROTS I can't say that. Commander Cody helmet-less feels and looks off. Palpatine's digital double is very noticeable, but overall the quality of the effects work is fantastic. TPM's effects are absolutely perfect. No complaints what-so-ever.

 

This might sound blasphemous to some people, but I just rewatched the OT and noted that a lot of the effects in them have not aged well. People are just nostalgic about them.

I think the CGI in the PT have aged well, but I'm sure in the future they won't look so good but that's just what happens.

 

Why are people saying general grevious was CGI ?

 

Because he was?

 

I don't think he was.

 

Please explain, im confused. How is he not CGI?

 

I think grevious was made using realistic effects with shinny metal and stuff like they did in the original trilogy. I remember for mortal kombat they had something similar with goro.

 

Im pretty sure he was only a man in a green suit behind the scenes. I have never seen evidence of these realistic effects.

 

everybody who says that it has aged - already hated the prequels before they noticed it aged...................................as a fan of the PT, i never noticed if it aged or not and the cgi looks fine to me.

 

There are so many shots where I'm like, "man those people are totally standing in front of a green screen" and it totally takes me out of the film. That said, the CGI does slightly improve with each film.

 

I'm 1000% positive that he was CGI.

 

Does no one google anymore???

"The initial design for Grievous was created by Warren Fu as a design for the Magnaguard. That initial sketch was refined and made into a 1-foot (30 cm)-tall maquette sculpture. That was further refined when it was made into a realistic computer-generated model by Industrial Light & Magic. At the time, this was one of the most complicated models ever created by ILM, with many parts of differing physical qualities. Grievous is completely computer-generated imagery in the movie. On set, Duncan Young read the lines off-screen while Kyle Rowling wore abluescreen or a greenscreen suit to act out the fights with Obi-Wan Kenobi."

...and looks pretty fake ten years on, BUT, the secret is that most of the backgrounds are just as fake looking, so it only seems noticeable in scenes where there are live actors.

 

Even Poggle the Lesser looks way better than Snoke. And Lucas kept his backgrounds in focus, while JJ blurs the backgrounds, so whatever stuff he puts in his bluescreens is blurred digitally and you can't appraise it. Lucas used models to make huge environments. If JJ Abrams directed the Sarlaac sequence, all we would see is a big light blur, like Han did.

 

Basically all of the indoor scenes of coruscant (especially the jedi temple) have huge visual problems. Oh, and the clones in AOTC, when we get the wide shot of the army, my god... couldn't they at least have gotten a couple of people in armor?

 

The only glaring CGI issues are things I've noticed from day one....so those issues haven't aged for me...rather they are still there 10 plus years on.

For example, even ten years ago I instantly noticed Palpatine's digital face double in the duel.

 

Me too. It didn't bother me at 8 years old and it doesn't bother me at 18 years old.

 

As a long time unenthusiastic prequel watcher (rather than basher!) I would say it really is just AOTC that has aged really badly. The film has a washed out look and hardly any of the backgrounds look visually REAL, way too cartoony. On the other hand, ROTS still looks absolutely stunning and has grown on me a lot over the past few years.

That's not to say the OT hasn't aged well in some parts either just that my eyes can forgive wonky models and sets far more than dated CGI.

 

The Clone Troopers in ROTS are certainly a lot better than the ones on AOTC. When Ive first watched the movie, I couldn't say if they were real or not. I thought they were people in suits, or didn't even think about it at all back then which proves that the CGI works extremely well. And still, today, I can't still say if it's CGI or not when I've watched the movie on a 1080p screen resolution.

 

The CGI in Revenge of the Sith is still impressive to me. A lot of the full CG environments look real to me, apart from the ones in Attack of the Clones.

 

Their movements are so lifelike. ROTS is the only movie I've ever seen to be able to pull it off.

 

Add a touch of grain, contrast and desaturation and it looks like the film print version.