PT Do you wish episodes 2 & 3 had the same visual style as TPM?

There was clearly a massive change in style from TPM to AOTC due to the whole digital thing. Does anyone else actually prefer the way TPM looked? I thought everything looked so much more real and it's not just the use of more sets. The kind of cgi they used in episode 1 actually looks more real compared to 2 & 3 imo. Think about how Sebulba looks compared to the squashed head Banking Clan alien from AOTC, the cgi just looks a lot more painted than in TPM. It's like when they over design stuff with so much detail it looks less real. It's the same with explosions, the pod racer crashes with debris flying everywhere looks better to me than any other destruction in the next two movies. Do you know what I mean? It's just my opinion but does anyone agree? There's quite a few more examples I could mention but I won't go too deep into it now.

Another major change from TPM was the color palette. Ep 2 & 3 were super colorful while the other films had a dull, gritty feel to them. I used to really like how colorful they were but now I think it makes them feel too separate from the rest of the movies making them feel like they're not even part of the same universe.

I just think that TPM had the best visual style that felt like the perfect evolution from the orginal trilogy and I wish they'd kept it for the other two prequels. I remember when I first saw AOTC I knew something had changed when the Naboo ships were flying over the cloudy tops of the skyscrapers, there was something very digital looking about it that TPM never had.

 

Well there was a massive style change from ANH to TESB to ROTJ as well. They do the first film. Learn then they apply what they learned and what they wanted to do.

For the prequels each film changed from the previous. ROTS is different again from AOTC.

I find none of them more or less "real" than the others. They are all as real as each other but also different. Actually AOTC is a good bridge between the two as it revisits Coruscant, Naboo and Tatooine but shifts the style they are presented in from TPM. Coruscant more than the others of course.

TPM actually had the least physical sets built probably due to more location work. TPM had 54, AOTC 67 and ROTS 72.

The "CGI" used was basically the same only more advanced as the technology and techniques got better meaning a mix of practical and CGI. The main difference was that TPM used lots of filming models for vehicles while the other two mostly used models for reference not actual filming while now they don't even use that as it's totally done in CGI. If they need the models to look at physically they just print them out to see them.

Comparing Sebulba to a background character who is on screen for seconds is like comparing a really good physical creature with a background one. You may or may more like one or the other. Some are quite good others maybe not so. Whether someone is a mask on set or a CGI character each can be just as likely to not satisfy everybody. The Muun character never struck me as particularly good or bad while the others were quite impressive so I would agree in that whether CGI or creature he was not outstanding.

I don't see this "dull gritty feel" you do for the movies. I would really not apply that term to any of the movies at all.

 

This is a very good observation.

Nonetheless, I do resonate to the OP's postulations.

Yes, it is, in large part.

Again, however, I see what the OP is saying.

That's another good observation.

Yet AOTC is a very busy movie and more extreme in style than either TPM or ROTS, or any of the other movies, in my opinion.

However, I think it is true to say, as you just said, that "they are all as real as each other but also different".

Nice figure-quoting.

Although, perhaps it could be maintained that, even if TPM had less physical sets, they were integrated in a more "physical" way, or more time is spent in those sets, or as you half imply, there was a good deal of location work in TPM, giving it a bit more of a rugged, real-world feel, overall.

Yes. The prequels do become a bit more "digital" as they move along. Digital cinematography, fewer (on-screen) models, more extensive use of digital doubles, and increasing digital layering, all see to it that AOTC and ROTS feel a bit more surreal and painterly, in some ways, than TPM, I think.

The broad-shouldered, rugged manliness of Qui-Gon, particularly when he dons the poncho on Tatooine, could almost be taken as a metaphor for how much more "solid" TPM is, from a certain point of view. Our hero protagonists after that become leaner, younger, more rakish, and a bit more solipsistic, in a way. Qui-Gon brings a bit of world-weary grit and charm that is absent from his "children". There is a slight disparity between the episodes, which adds a tension, that may be perceived as puny, banal, regrettable, remarkable, or even fascinating.

Yes. I think that that was a bit of a loaded comparison. Nonetheless, I also think Sebulba -- still just a side character -- was exquisitely designed, and I can see how the OP might think that a bit less work was put into AOTC, or the animation department was overtaxed, or whatever. Still, the Muun character is on-screen so fleetingly that, ah, I can't lose sleep over it, personally. And AOTC has some captivating digital characters strewn about two or three of its visually-extraordinary worlds.

No, indeed. It seems like slightly the wrong term, in my estimation.

But...

TPM has some really lovely "storybook" visuals married to slightly harder "sci-fi" tones that, in my opinion, makes it a unique entry in the canon. Plus, as the OP has alluded to, an anamorphic, film-based solidity, in concert with the presence of extensive location shooting and physical ship models, lends a further weight to TPM's fantastical conjugations, I think. So TPM, it could be argued, strikes something of a balance between the lush, painterly visuals of AOTC and ROTS and the starker colour schemes and aesthetic firmness of the OT installments. It is an excellent "bridging" installment, and in that regard, totally its own thing.

But that doesn't put me in a snit over any of the movies. I don't mind them clashing a bit. Indeed, I think it's half the point. There is, somehow, an erotic charge about the relentless use of wild and deep saturation in AOTC, in particular, that I love.

The movies don't have to be played off against one another so much as embraced on their own terms; and then seen in terms of a bigger, more ravenous whole. Why should they share exactly the same template and have unified surfaces? No, difference is the key, I think.

"Jar Jar is the key to all this."

 

"Do you wish episodes 2 & 3 had the same visual style as TPM?"

To the same extent as I wish episodes 5 and 6 had exactly the same visual style as ANH.

 

I'm actually a born-again TPM fan. It's the last one to feel like it wasn't digitized. It's the last SW movie to feel like a SW movie in terms of filters, camerawork, and the general cinematography. AotC, RotS, and TFA all feel too "modern", if that makes sense. They have a nice, scrubbed, kinda of gritless digital look. The feel "clean". Even TFA. It feels like the lenses for the camera had been scrubbed spotless and left none of the "dusty" look that held the OT and TPM. "Colorful" I suppose is another word you could use, but this one applies more so to the PT than to the OT. The OT has a kind of drained color. It's colored, but without being flashy about it. The Empire is almost all blacks, whites, and greys. The Emperor's Red Guard being the most stand out colors. The Rebellion uses some color decals, and has more colorful aliens and flightsuits, but still manages to feel more muted. The PT, and TFA to an extent, feel the need to point out that it's colorful.

 

Nah.

 

Nice observations, there, Dinos.

My brother thought something similar re: TFA. He didn't realize it was shot on film until I told him. He said he prefers films to have a bit of grit and grain to them. I largely agreed. Limitation is key. It imbues a picture with mystery and romance.

That said, I like the slick, smooth look of AOTC and ROTS a fair bit. I think they make for an interesting contrast with the other movies. They do, indeed, feel quite "clean", like highly-polished video surveillance footage or something. But I don't particularly mind that effect in their case.

I don't know if there was a great deal more colour -- in the loose sense -- in TFA than in the OT; or if the movie was trying to "point" that out. I got sort of the opposite feel in some ways. If anything, TFA doesn't seem to have much identity or character, from a cinematographic point-of-view. I don't think it is sure of what it wants to be. It has neither the slick ambiance of the prequels nor the gritty precision of the OT. It's sort of, I dunno, a bit Narnia-esque or something. Adventures In Sepia Land.

And to reverse course on what I just said about AOTC and ROTS, somewhat, I will add that there is still a kind of grubby elegance to those films, from a photographic perspective. They're still filtered and by no means "perfect"-looking. Clear, colourful, beautiful, pristine-looking, but deliberately not flawless. There is a romantic remove to the image capture, through gels, filters, inherent limitations to the lenses and sensors, etc. They look slick, but they manage to avoid being completely anodyne. There is still something slightly "untouchable" about them. At least, IMO.

And that's part of what makes this saga such an animating masterpiece. A fractal weave of light and sound.

 

I never really noticed a difference in visual style over the three movies. Maybe in a couple scenes and between the trilogies but thats all. Although I am a fan of movies with color.

 

well TPM does resemble the originals style more than AotC and RotS... but no , I'm fine with how they were shot. GL had them made that way to get his movie as close as possible to how he envisioned it

 

Can I please ask for a source for that? I'd like to have it at the ready in case I need to quote it myself in the future.

 

IIRC the first two are from http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Cinema_of_George_Lucas

I don't think the third is but it might be. Either that or from The Making of ROTS. Also on commentary McCallum talks about some 70 or so sets.

 

They have to be clean. The Golden Era of the Galaxy Far away must be clean, colorful, full of life, generally a visual feast. The Empire is .. the dark times, after all.Here the technlogy helps for an intentional result, it is not just some side-effect of the CGI.
Every movie has it color palette, I think Lucas as a visual director made that perfectly. The movie with most light, beautiful colors and only a dark glimpses (fog, dark holes, etc) is AOTC. ROTS is darker, full with fire (hell), only with few light moments. TPM is intense in colors, but is changeling in the moments of the phantom menace is darker, in the happy moments is lighter. I think the color speaks for itself in Lucas movies, so I just try to listen.

 

I have always felt that the CG in Attack of the Clones was mostly just flat-out inferior compared to The Phantom Menace. There are exceptions, such as the Kaminoans, but I think the problem was the animators were rushed, given the greater amount of CG characters, buildings and scenery that had to be created for AOTC. Plus the movie seems to be the most heavily re-edited, with Lucas demanding CG-heavy scenes such as the Droid Factory scene late in production. Revenge of the Sith was a much more efficient shoot, with no location shooting, a better understanding of the story, and Lucas had probably learned some lessons about how much work his animators could handle in a certain amount of time. I think the CG in ROTS is not just a different style, but vastly improved. The Coruscant cityscapes are particularly breathtaking and have an amazing photographic realism.

 

1. Do you have any proof to back up that claim? The time gap between all the movies was consistently 3 years so I don't see why one movie with 3 years production time would be rushed while another also with 3 years time wouldn't be? Also, 3 years is a lot by today's standards where franchise movies are coming out within 2 or 1.5 years of each other.

2. Wasn't the Droid Factory scene the ONLY full CGI scene and also the only one to be added during re shoots?

3. No location shooting? Sure, the actors didn't shoot on a real location but they did shoot islands and mountains in China and Thailand and used that footage to make all the Kashyyy shots. They used on location shooting of Mt. Etna to be used in the Mustafar shots. They used shots from Switzerland for Alderaan. During Episode 2 shooting they shot the final scene of ROTS of Obi leaving Luke on Tatooine, in the Tunisian desert, which they composited with the actors later on.

4. It was also that the technology just improved by leaps in the few years gap between AOTC and ROTS. Lucas also used a new cinematographic style in ROTS using almost fish-eye view wide shots at times, including that of Coruscant. They also made the movie look sharper, so things looked better. It's all about technical improvements and advancements in ROTS rather than a lack of effort in AOTC.

 

Good thoughts, good thoughts.

Lucas is a master with colour.

Look how each of the movies starts: with a colour wheel (the Lucasfilm logo rapidly going through a variety of hues).

An encapsulation and a preview of the erotic experimentation with colour that lies ahead.

You outline the progression of colour schemes in the prequel trilogy very well. There's something quite deep and serious about it. It's Rothko-esque in its intensity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko

 

The Droid Factory scene was NOT added "late" in production -months earlier than many other pick-up scenes-, and its editing was finialized much earlier than the editing of the final battle.

 

That's good to know! Can you please tell me which scenes were added in post production or were re shot later, if any?

 

I'd have to look up on the Making off book,but from what I can remember...

There were three pick-up sessions for Clones, the first one in March-April 2001 (in which the Droid factory scene was shot), the second one in November 2001 (amongst other scenes, the elevator scene between Obi-Wan and Anakin, the scene between Palpatine and Anakin and the scene between Yoda-Mace-Obi-wan were shot), and a final one in January 2002 (in which small pieces were shot). A lot of the elements shot for the final battle were shot during these pick-ups as well.

So, the Droid Factory scene was shot 13 months before the movie came out.

 

That statement should be explained further, I think. It is true they shot elements in all those countries, but just as ELEMENTS to be used in a final CGI composition. The backgrounds we see in Kashyyk are NOT actual shots from China and Thailand. Only elements from those real shots are used and integrated in the composition. Same for the Mt. Etna shots (only some real lava elements were used), or Switzerland.
And the scene they shot in 2000 in Tunisia was discarded and never used, actually. It had Obi-Wan (actually, his stunt-double) giving the baby to Owen (rather than Beru). It was re-shot in a studio. However, elements of the original tunisian shot were probably used as well.

 

Nope I love that the films don't look the same and that Lucas used digital cinematography to the fullest.

 

I actually like that AOTC feels a bit unreal. Kind of fits in with the idea that Anakin's dream of becoming a Jedi didn't exactly work out like he envisioned it. The images just seem to fit (or create) this atmosphere of weird reality, whether it's a shapeshifting assassin in a neon lit city, or grey aliens, the impossible beauty of a Naboo picnic, or the hazy chaos of war breaking out on Geonosis. Couldn't imagine AOTC looking any other way. Or maybe I could, but I wouldn't like it as much.

 

I have no problem with Episodes II and III looking different, on the contrary. It would have been disappointing had they all looked like TPM. That's what makes a good sequel, and that's why Aliens or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were good sequels. They were different in tone and style without contradicting the originals. The main flaw TFA has is not trying hard to offer a different style, that's why to me it's the worst SW movie yet. This is a thing filmmakers should learn: forget about "going back to the roots". Be a little bolder and show us something new instead. This is why Last Crusade and TFA failed, at least for me. The originals were good enough, so let them be already. Don't rehash them, but rather expand on the locations, styles, stories, characters, visuals, music, everything, instead. That way they are honored and appreciated much more than when they are copied over and over again. The close-minded unimaginative viewer wants copies, wants to see the same old characters in the same old places doing the same old things again, while the more mature and open-minded one will want to see new things, to be surprised.

 

I disagree with the last crusade, it was different enough for me. It also happens to be my favorite Indiana Jones film, but i agree about TFA. The star wars universe has never been so unimaginative as it was in TFA, also pretty disappointing that it took 30 years for the sequel to RotJ to be made and the galaxy is almost exactly the same.

Question about The last crusade, since i love it. Ignoring the Nazi´s, and the search for another christian artifact how is it a rehash? Just curious

 

I suppose the desert setting could be part of it.

But there are loads of new settings as well, like Venice, Austria and Berlin.

 

Yeah, its probably the desert. Doesn't bother me though because it still introduced a lot of new settings and concepts.