CT Of all the changes made to the OT

In your opinion. And how is it a fault trying to portray a huge battle using "millions of laser beams"? That's like complaining about a Jedi having a lightsaber.

I haven't seen anything "obvious fake looking". CG is merely a tool. I still don't understand how one could portray hundreds of clones, droids, etc battling without CG, not to mention a creature like Boga and what it was supposed to do. Care to provide an alternative?

Unlike you, I don't unfairly compare two different creatures with very different anatomy and purpose. I can buy both.

Yes, they can. That's why they use markers. And green screen shouldn't be a problem since an actor needs to have some amount of imagination to act even when "nothing" is there. That's what they do on theater plays.

And who are you to decide when a character should or shouldn't flinch. One could say that not flinching is in character since according to Lucas, Jedi are trained against fear.

Because you were talking about "non-realistic landscapes".

 

Models work up to a point- but they still require CG as well. Even Jurassic Park, one of the better creature modelling movies of its day, intermixed models with CG.

 

There's nothing realistic about Padme falling down a hill of red sand and when she stands up, hardly a single grain is on her.

There are a disproportionately low amount of "real sets" in the PT when compared to other modern day sci-fi, special effects laden movies. Heck, if it wasn't for the scenes on Tatooine where the production crew had to actually get out of their nice comfy green screen soundstages and get out in the world, there's very little. E2 Naboo was done well because that was a real environment but Geonosis, Utapau, Coruscant, Kamino, not so much.

Providing examples to support my argument ≠ cherry picking. And I'll thank you not to accuse me of being dishonest.

Well I meant the actual scenes which take place at those moments in the story, not necessarily the exact picture I put in. Maybe a better example would be the battles on Hoth versus the battle on Geonosis. One feels like it has real combatants and the other feels like you're watching a cartoon. E2's budget was big enough that they could have made a couple real life clonetrooper suits. Heck there are literally more clonetrooper helmets in my bedroom than were used in all the Star Wars movies.

 

1. In most people's opinions (that I've heard), the Battle of Coruscant was overdone.
2. Droids, maybe not, but Clones could be played by actors and Boga could be a puppet. Just look at Stormtroopers and Dewbacks (in the original version)
3. Alright, but Dewbacks have same anatomy and purpose, and they weren't CGI (originally).
4. Even markers don't help all that much.
5. He could have at least got into defense position.
6. They aren't that realistic. Most of them.

 

He's absolutely right about that particular scene and saying "Jedi are trained against fear" is just being an apologist.

That's what happens when you have an actor standing in front of empty space. When they shot the scene they didn't know for sure how it would look or what Grievous would do. So Obi-Wan just standing there looking at dead air not reacting to his opponent is weaksauce. It takes the viewer out of the moment and hurts the realism.

 

So now that's the problem?

Source?

Now you're confusing sets with green screen and real locations. How many scenes in Star Trek were shot on real locations? Also, Naboo?

Unless you can portray a world like Coruscant, Kamino, Mustafar, and the like with real locations (which you can't) instead of sets, miniatures and CG, I'm not sure what exactly are you arguing about... Are you saying that Lucas should have restricted his imagination because you or someone else doesn't like fictional words that don't rely on real locations?

Providing examples to support your argument while ignoring similar examples of the film you're comparing to is cherry picking.

I don't want to. It's up to you.

Right... The exact scenes at those monents are the ones shown in the pictures you've provided, so the argument remains the same. The Trade Federation battleship was done using real sets.

Sure, if you want to ignore various essential details like the attempt to portray thousands of troops that are supposed to be from the same mold, huge ships, various landscapes, etc, etc...

In your opinion.

If it was necessary (which it wasn't, as seen in the movie), I'm sure they would have made them.

Please, avoid ad hominems. It weakens your argument.

Another example of ignorance regarding the making of these movies. There was a stunt double portraying Grievous on every scene against Ewan.

 

The amount of opinions you have heard is relative and subjective. Not to mention it hardly proves or disproves what's being discussed (ad populum).

Clones could be played by actors if there were an huge amount of Temuera Morrisons out there. And yes, Boba could be a puppet if it was meant to stand still in the background (like in the original version of ANH). Both we both now that doesn't apply for what they are trying to do.

No, they don't have the same purpose. One was to stand still and far in the background. The other was to be on the center stage of an action sequence.

Yes, they do. That's why they are used to this day.

He did.

Again, your opinion doesn't change the facts.

 

Yet you ignore the fact that most of it was done on blue screen.

 

1. Make a poll and find out.
2. Who say said they needed their helmets off? They could have had the ones with their helmets on the whole movie be played by actors.
3. Not all action means CGI. Besides, if they had to make Boga CGI, at least make her movements more realistic.
4. They help a little, but it's a bit hard to act like an inanimate object is a person.
5. He got into defense position like 5 seconds too late.
6. Oh, here we go again with the opinion-fact argument.

 

That's not a fact. It's a flat out lie. Please do watch the making of featurettes.

I'm not the one with the burden of proof, nor does a random internet poll proves anything (again, ad populum).

I'm not sure why the words "clone" and "hundreds" are being ignored.

Yes it does when we are talking about this example.

Because you've decided that a fictional lizard with gecko based movements is not realistic?

Hard for some, easy for others. Again, your point has been refuted before.

Are you trolling? Who are you to decide what's late or soon? How exactly was he late when Grievous didn't even attack when he got into his defensive position?

Sorry to break it to you, but it's the truth. Opinion aren't facts.

 

1. It would give a pretty good representation of what people think of it.
2. There were not hundreds of clones on Utapau (that we could see). About as many as there were stormtroopers on Endor.
3. They could have made Boca.more realistic looking.
4. Yep
5. A personal attack because you can't debunk my argument? I see.
6. Okay, that's your opinion.

 

It's almost like coming out of the garbage chute being all squeaky clean with perfect hairdo.

 

No, it would give a good representation of what the people who voted on such poll think. Nothing more.

Yes there were, many shots show it. And again, clones.

Hardly. An whole fleet was headed to Utapau.

They did. Your definition of "more realism" is subjective and not measurable.

You don't have a valid argument to begin with. And who made a personal attack? I made a question and refutted your fallacious argumentation.

No, it's not my opinion. It's a fact. If you still don't know the difference, I suggest picking a dictionary.

 

That's one of many.

Any individual who has seen the movies would qualify as a source for that.

I'm not confusing anything. I am giving an example of things that were done right in Star Trek, things I anticipate will be done right in E7, but were not done right consistently in the PT.

I've provided great examples to support my point. You've provided pretty much nothing.

If you decide to engage in ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you, then you should be prepared for the mods to shut the entire discussion down.

Not that parts I saw.

Lord of the Rings did all of those things and did it perfectly, using the right combination of CGI and, you know, actually real actors (and extras) in costume.

Obviously your eye is nowhere near as discerning as the rest of us. I understand that a lot of people like you see a CGI scene and can't tell it is CGI, but a lot of the rest of us can tell the difference.

I don't like terms like "necessary" but it would have made for a better movie to have the added element of realism.

I don't consider calling someone an apologist an ad hominem but if you were offended, then I certainly apologize. Please show the same consideration in not calling someone else a liar or engaging in ad hominem of your own.

Not in the part that I am referring to. Unless the stunt double had 4 arms?

 

+1. Some people really just can't tell the difference between CGI and real life, but I'm glad I can (and I am sure you are glad that you can too).

Lord of the Rings, 3 films made almost concurrently with the PT, shows how movies should be made. From building real life sets to miniature to actors in costume, and using those elements with the right amount of CGI to create a very realistic fantasy world. I have faith Star Wars will move in the right direction under Abrams.

 

*Looks at title of thread in the CT section*
*Goes in to see whining about CGI in the PT*

Eh

 

1. I would trust people's opinions on this forum.
2. Once again, they could have used real life actors.
3. An a whole fleet went to Endor.
4. I'm sorry, but like Beezer said, most can actually tell how fake Boga looks.
5. You asked if I was trolling because I have a different opinion or view than you. Hence: Personal Attack.
6. I'll get mine out right now.

 

1. In YOUR opinion. Not mine. And not many others'
2. Clones COULD have been. Except that they wouldn't be the same size unless CGI was utilized. Therefor, it was a smart decision to use CGI. And a puppet? A puppet is the very definition of "fake looking".
3. And they looked awful. That's why they changed them to CGI.
4. Actually I remember Obi-Wan flinching quite a bit when Greivous does the lightsaber spin.
5. Um, he did!
6. They are very realistic. You just refuse to accept that.

 

The PT used real life sets. The PT used miniatures. The PT used actors in costume. And LOTR (which I love more than Star Wars) used LOADS of CGI.
Or would you prefer that the Troll was a man in as suit? The Mumakil puppets? Gollum a normal human? And remove all the epic battle scenes?
Did you know that all the epic wide shots of Helms Deep were 99% CGI? Only the castle itself was a miniature, while EVERY SINGLE orc, elf, and man was CGI. Along with the entire environment.
The incredible Mumakil battle was also 80-90% CGI. Only close up shots of the riders on horses was real - and that was filmed on a lawn with green screen! Thousand of riders on horses and orcs and the Mumakil themselves were all CGI. If you had the LOTR:ROTK extended DVDs or Blu-rays you can see the EXACT BREAKDOWN - and just how little "real" was used!
For someone who's watched every single production doc on both LOTR and Star Wars, I find criticizing the PT FX while praising LOTR for its FX to be quite facetious.

 

Whuh-huh? You don't think they could have done a casting call for a bunch of 5'11" actors (or whatever the right size is). Or, for that matter, have Temuera Morrison do 1,000 takes and composite them together?

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. Obi-Wan does not move a muscle at the moment when Grievous does the lightsaber spin. In fact, Grievous pulls out his lightsabers, lights all 4 of them, does that little spin move, and says "attack, Kenobi!" and Obi-Wan does not react in the slightest during those moments. Of course, that's because Ewan McGregor was just standing there in a big green room and received poor direction. (Just for clarity sake, because you may be a bit confused, we are talking about the little spin maneuver where he says "Attack, Kenobi!" and not where he is walking towards Kenobi with the top 2 sabers rotating at a very high speed).

 

QFT

These OT vs. PT arguments never end well.

 

Yeah, I've stopped feeding that "discussion". When people can't come up with fair comparisons and start to fallaciously cherry pick what they want (including opinions which are then treated as facts), it becomes a big waste of time trying to put some logic in the conversation...

 

Isn't that exactly what you're doing though? And it is a fact that Padme doesn't have a single grain of red sand on her when she falls into the dunes of Geonosis. It's not realistic, that's all.

 

No.

No, that's not all as you once again ignored everything else that's been discussed, including your various rebutted fallacies.

 

They probably thought that technological progress and development was still appreciated and people weren't stuck in the past. Why would you spend much time talking about models and all that stuff that has long been known?
Unfortunately, these statements helped creating the common misconception that "everyone was CG in the Prequels" which is just wrong.

Actually, I've always thought the Battle Of Hoth was one of the most fake looking battles in all the Star Wars films. The snow just doesn't look like snow a lot of times and it's clearly visible that the AT-ATs aren't nearly as massive and big as we're supposed to believe. Let's not forget the heavy-handed way in which all the fighters fly. The flying movement is not really realistic, imo. That always reminds me of a little kid playing with his plane toy.
But that's just me and, like Alexrd, I think it's pointless to discuss which scenes or techniques look more or less "real". Boga looks a bit fake, I agree, but the Tauntauns don't feel like living creatures either.I appreciate what was done with puppet Yoda and I agree that he feels palpable, yet I don't see him as a creatures with heart and blood and digital Yoda is much better at "realistic" facial expressions and attitude which makes him a bit more "alive" to me. Personally.
In the end, I think, it depends on the individual preferences and realities. I've always thought when people complained about "CG in the prequels" they actually couldn't deal with the cleaner look of these films. That cleaner look, however, is one of the things I like the most about them. I hate dirt, sorry

A few examples (far from complete, LOTR and SW are not comparable anyway, imo, because LOTR takes place on middle earth which, of course, resembles our earth more than Kamino or Mustafar, so they could use more "real world" material)
Building massive sets:






Miniatures/models:









Costumes:




Real life sets:




And let's not forget: