Losing interest in SW?

you obviously don't understand what I'm writing.

LOTR did not use CGI for all their locations. Where did you get that info from?

AOTC uses CGI for ALL locations. There's barely a shot in the film that's not digitally enhanced.

The location work in Italy was for scenes inside the Naboo palace, not for the other shots of Naboo.

The problem I have with CG landscapes is that they're too perfect. Look at the waterfalls on Naboo (TPM and AOTC). the problem with those is that they're PERFECT, they look as if 10 Million drops of water all drop parallel to each other. the flow of the water looks as if it was controlled by somebody. Look at real waterfalls - the flow is never straight, there are thousands of little things like rocks, trees, plants etc. that cause the water to flow in all kinds of directions. A real waterfall looks like chaos. ILM waterfalls look like computer-controlled waterfalls. There's nothing organic about them. They look fake

 

"There's nothing organic about them. They look fake"

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but they are fake. Made in a computer. They consist of nothing more than "1100010101001001010101".

Really, FOTR was the first film to store every shot digitally. It was shot on film, but stored digitally. So who really knows how much CGI they used.

And second, I thought that this was originally about Lucas NOT using locations but rather CGI to invent his locations. You yourself have clearly proved this to be incorrect, because he still uses location shooting.

 

The day I start examining waterfalls for Matrix-Like near-perfection, is the day the robots take over...

Or have they already?

My point? Who cares?

N.

 

I care - because I like films to look organic and not like a Playstation game

Mike Hunt, stop being so difficult. You're clearly just trying to misunderstand me. You pretend not to understand anything I'm saying but you're clearly more intelligent than that.

 

Ok, lets just agree to disagree. Always the best way to end an argument.

And another thing, where did you get your platstation, cos if it looks that good, I want one

 

A real waterfall looks like chaos. ILM waterfalls look like computer-controlled waterfalls.

Oops, there you done shot yourself in the foot again.

For the record, the waterfalls in the overhead shots of the city in TPM were actually sand. The city itself was a model. CGI was used only to add minor enhancements (birds and the like) and to composite the minature "sand" falls and the model city together.

The waterfalls in the background of AOTC's picnic scene were real waterfalls shot at different angles and composited into the scene using computers.

 

Thanks Durwood.

Oh well, I guess we win after all.

 

God, you guys are really trying to be difficult. Let me explain again so that EVERYBDDY understands it

1. the locations needed for AOTC are not fantastic by any means. Apart from Coruscant EVERYTHING else is a scenery that can be found on this very planet

2. Instead of filiming on such a location Lucas decided to digitally "create" them. Once again for no good reason other than money

3. I (and Millions of other peopl) prefer real locations in a film. Simply because it looks organic. Like the mud in FOTR. The actors are dirty. They have dirt under the fingernails. The actors were NOT digitally placed into CD mud. That's why those scenes in FOTR look engaging yet the battle scenes in AOTC do not.

Regarding the waterfall:


"For the record, the waterfalls in the overhead shots of the city in TPM were actually sand. The city itself was a model.CGI was used only to add minor enhancements (birds and the like) and to composite the minature "sand" falls and the model city together."

Call me crazy but I seem to recall the little film on the TPM DVD that explained in detail that the waterfall was created digitally. Probably only my imagination

"The waterfalls in the background of AOTC's picnic scene were real waterfalls shot at different angles and composited into the scene using computers. "

And how does that differ from digitally created waterfalls?

GUYS, wake up. You might not have heard about it but it's true - THERE ARE REAL WATERFALLS ON EARTH THAT CAN BE FILMED WITH A CAMERA AND IT COSTS 2 DOLLARS TO DO SO. You don't need dozens of digital artists creating a waterfall for 20,000 Dollars a shot.

How difficult can it be to understand this?

 

I agree completely


DREAMWALKER:roleplaying in the land of dreams
http://dreamwalkerrpg.home.att.net/

 

I agree with Tukafo that the whole thing seems to have become an experimental exercise on CG effects, with no care in the world for an actual story that works.

For a film with amazing effects that don't bother the film's amazing storyline one needs to look at Minority Report, fantastic film that uses effects as subtle devices rather than the raison d'etre of the film itself.

 

I have a five year old son who has "made" me (it didn't take a lot of persuasion) take him to see Episode 2 SEVEN times. He absolutely loves it and it has replaced even Batman (his all time favorite).
I don't think it is the movies, it is the child. I know some kids whose parents have not taken them to see SW or Spiderman.
For shame on them.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand US. What IS the difference betweem a real waterfall and a real waterfall. That is a question you just asked. The TPM waterfall was salt or sand (can't remember exactly) so that was a physical effect. Now I am confused to what you are implying, and I'm not acting stupid. You say that he creates things with CGI, but then you say he doesn't. It's giving me a headache.

 

Mike, let's give this discussion a rest. you just fail to see my point, which is fair enough

 

1. the locations needed for AOTC are not fantastic by any means. Apart from Coruscant EVERYTHING else is a scenery that can be found on this very planet

2. Instead of filiming on such a location Lucas decided to digitally "create" them. Once again for no good reason other than money

Many of the Naboo scenes are 100% real locations. Many of the Tatooine scenes are 100% real locations. Geonosis, well, show me a location on earth that looks like that (complete with the orange sky and unique rock formations) and you'll have won the argument. Kamino--I think we can agree that like Coruscant, Kamino would have been impossible to realize through location photography. So you see, it's only those environments that are truly fantastic that Lucas chose to employ CGI.

3. I (and Millions of other peopl) prefer real locations in a film.

And countless millions more simply don't care one way or the other.

Like the mud in FOTR. The actors are dirty. They have dirt under the fingernails. The actors were NOT digitally placed into CD mud.

You mean like how Obi-Wan was placed into digitally created rain in the Kamino scenes? Oh, wait, that was real water. Well, O.K., how about the digital sand in the arena scenes. Oh, sorry, that was real sand. Alright, fine, what about the digital wind blowing Anakin's and Obi-Wan's hair in the gunship--damn it! That was real wind!

(Don't look now, but I think your argument has hopelessly crumbled.)

That's why those scenes in FOTR look engaging yet the battle scenes in AOTC do not.

That's your opinion. I enjoyed AOTC's battle scenes while I found FOTR's chaotic, close-up shakey cam where you can't see what the hell is going on to be irratating. But that's just my opinion. All I'm saying is, don't try to use opinion to conclude an argument since it pretty much invalidates the rest of your argument.

Call me crazy but I seem to recall the little film on the TPM DVD that explained in detail that the waterfall was created digitally. Probably only my imagination.

No, not your imagination, but that was also for a scene that wasn't in the actual movie. The falls that were in TPM were created using sand. So what's your argument now since they used traditional, non-computer techniques to create those waterfalls? You're going to work a bit harder now since CGI bashing won't cut it!

And how does that differ from digitally created waterfalls?

Um, because they are real waterfalls? But in your mind, a real waterfall composited into a scene is suddenly no longer a "real" waterfall. I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic.

You might not have heard about it but it's true - THERE ARE REAL WATERFALLS ON EARTH THAT CAN BE FILMED WITH A CAMERA AND IT COSTS 2 DOLLARS TO DO SO.

Fine, then show me a photograph of an actual location that looks just like what we saw in the movie and you'll have won the argument.

 

Durwood, there's no need to get aggressive. The consequence of such writing is that your discussion partner will not take you seriously and won't respond to your points

 

My interest in Star Wars is far greater now than when I was a kid.

 

How the hell can either one of you speak for millions of people?

 

Thats a very good point.

 

"How the hell can either one of you speak for millions of people?"

Amen!

While we are at it let me say this. There are a number of totally fake, or mostly fake environments/shots in both trilogies.

For example the approach to Cloud City. You don't think they shot that on location did you? (Note this refers to the non-SE edition of Empire) They probably used a combination of matte paintings/models to realize those shots. Same thing with the approach to Tipoca City which was a combination of models/digital matte paintings, with lightning and water thrown in.

 

Durwood, there's no need to get aggressive. The consequence of such writing is that your discussion partner will not take you seriously and won't respond to your points.

Translation: Your post was so logical and well reasoned that I am at a loss as to how to refute it. Therefore, I will attempt the tried and true diversionary tactic known as an adhominem attack (i.e. attacking one's opponent rather than their arguments) in hopes of clouding the issue and hiding the fact that my back is up against the wall.

 

Durwood, you've obviosuly not yet realized that this discussion is over

"Back against the wall"? Are you OK? This is a movie discussion board, we post our little opinions about unimportant little films. This is not a "fight" that anybody "wins", my friend. I certainly don't care whether I persuade you or not

 

Durwood, you've obviosuly not yet realized that this discussion is over.

It's "over" only because you lost. There's no shame in admitting defeat, my friend.

And, no, this isn't about opinion. You made some clearly false statements, and you were proven wrong. Rather than admit that the basis of your argument was flawed, you instead try to hide behind the "It's all opinion!" shield. Doesn't work. You still lost.

Now while all this may seem off topic to some of you, I think it's a great example of why some people are losing interest in Star Wars. It's because rather than just sitting back and enjoying the magic that is the Star Wars saga, they instead nitpick the new films to death while remaining suspiciously oblivious to the fact that many of the same criticisms apply equally to the original films. So there are a handful of people who have ruined the new films for themselves, and this clouds there perception into thinking that everybody feels the same way.

To be honest, as far as I can tell, interest in Star Wars is as strong as ever.

 

Keep on deluding yourself girl, keep on deluding yourself.

 

I think it's important to note that most of Geonosis was not computer generated, but actually a scale physical model. The majority of the digital work to create an environment such as the Arena is compositing.

This video shows the creation and filming of the physical model of the arena. If you're going to try and debate the overuse of CGI, I think it's important to actually know what you're talking about (i.e., what is computer generated and what isn't).

BTW, I thought this was a thread about the general public's waning interest in our beloved saga, not yet another childish attack on the supposed faults of the PT.

 

Keep on deluding yourself girl, keep on deluding yourself

Has someone stolen your Username AL, you seem much meaner recently ?