One year later - How many stars do you give AOTC?

First ani said in previous threads that there's nothing wrong with cgi. Now s/he says there isn't that much!

Your point?

 

I hate to do this, but I'm going to anyways. AOTC used too much blue/green screen. Bugger all sets were created. It doesn't look 100% convincing to me. If more sets were used, then the it wouldn't feel so much like I was in a Tomb Raider game or something.

 

Let me get my opinion on CGI, for me CGI DOES NOT MAKE OR RUIN A MOVIE! It has no influence on how I will rate a film. Whenever I see a person make the arguement that a film had over usage of CGI or under usage of CGI I automatically throw away their arguement and I go on to the next one! Secondly their is no reason to complain about the CGI in AOTC I think it is top notch and sure is more beautiful than in any film I have ever seen. I respect Lucas for being able to make the OT without the technology that is given at this time. I always see Lucas as a pioneer back in 1977 the special effects in the OT were thought to be groundbreaking, and what he is doing with CGI is groundbreaking! Face it every big budget Hollywood picture from now on will have a good deal of CGI, AND THEIR IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. I believe by Episode 3 Lucas will have all but perfected usage of CGI by than.

Every Star Wars film from me gets the HIGEST RATING!

 

Let me start by saying that I'm pretty happy with AOTC. I already gave it four stars. It's great, but not perfect. There aren't many films that are. But about the CGI...


...in the mid '90s, Lucas was interviewed by Starlog magazine, and when they asked him if future episodes might be made as animated films, he said 'no', that any future SW films would be live action.


When McCallum and others brag during production that almost every shot in the movie is a special effects shot, and most of the film contains CGI elements, it makes me think back to Lucas' earlier statement.


If landscapes, vehicles, and even characters are CGI, at what point can it be considered an 'animated film'?


That is what I think people are getting at. They feel that the CGI elements are out of proportion to the 'live action'.


Me, I accept the film for what it is. I'm pretty happy with it, but I understand how some feel about the amount of CGI.

 

But you see they are nto useing all CGi. For Tatoonie and Naboo they went out and used live sets. For other parts they used models, set the made, minitures, and for things they coudl not get on any of those they used CGI.

 

anidamani:

My point? Seems you haven't watched AOTC as well as many of us have or you're just turning a blind eye too it.

I'm not remarking on the quality of the CGI. I'm merely saying that nearly every non-closeup shot of characters that are real (which aren't that many) has cgi in them. From Corusant to the windows in Palpatine's office to the city shots of Naboo to the droid factory to the arena to the clone battle. I forgot kamino.

That is minimum 70% of the shots in the film! McCallum even bragged about it for petes sake!

padmes_panties:

CGI DOES NOT MAKE OR RUIN A MOVIE! It has no influence on how I will rate a film.

First, nice name. Second, it doesn't make or ruin a movie for you? What if the CGI is bad? Whether its good or bad - would that make you think about how you would rate a film?

I didn't say the CGi was bad, I just thought there was too much of it. And yes, it does make a difference in how a film is judged. Ask any critic.

 

Seems you haven't watched AOTC as well as many of us have or you're just turning a blind eye too it.

Don't tell me what I do or don't do. I watched the movie and I did not turn in blind eye. But I also watched the behind the scenes. And I saw that the movie was nto all CGI.

For Naboo the used really places. Same with Tatooine.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the film is 100% CGI.


But there is a lot. More, I believe than any other film at the time.


I think Rick McCallum would back that up.

 

What if the CGI is bad?

And what is bad CGI. If you want to go for some really bad B-moive that is on the Sci-Fi channiel yes there is really bad CGI. But ILM is not the cutting edage of what they do.

 

An example of "bad CGI" might be Anakin riding on the back of that giant 'flea' in the field on Naboo.



An example of AWESOME CGI might be the clonetropers firing through the clouds of dust during the battle on Geonosis.

 

An example of "bad CGI" might be Anakin riding on the back of that giant 'flea' in the field on Naboo.

The real funny thing is that that is the only bad use of CGI and ILM even said that to. But everthing is very well done. Heck They had Obi-wan CGi for a few parts of the fight with Jango do to the fact that one of the sunts would have hurt him or someone else really badly. But they did such a great job on it that you can'd even tell.

 

4.5 stars.

One of the most enjoyable films I've come across the last decade. Its rewatchability factor is sky-high.

Visually, its breathtaking. George has an eye for vivid color, stupendous backdrops, and rich, harmonious imagery.

The connections and parallel themes to the OT are welcome and brilliantly manifested.

 

I love the way you wrote that. It is exactly how I feel as well. I just love this film.

 

andimandi:

But ILM is not the cutting edage of what they do.

ILM isn't on the cutting edge? Aren't they the leaders of CGI? Aren't they leading the way in special effects.

I didn't say anything about the quality of the effects - I said that there may have been too many.

And as far as your behind the scenes argument. Sure, there is plenty of miniatures but I advise you to watch AOTC again. Check out all the backgrounds - apart from 10-20 feet from the actors. Chances are, a blue screen is right there.

The Naboo scenes - I'm talking about the exterior shots not interior. In "downtown" Naboo, if that's not cgi, please tell me where this city is. its so beautiful - no trash, no pollution, spaceships and transports, wideopen spaces. Man, where is that city?

And as far as Obi-wan being cgi in parts of the kamino fight - why didn't they just use a stunt double?

 

The word is a live actor riding a cgi object is the hardest special effect in the business.

What not use a stunt double? Why would you when your already paying people to do sfx and why put someone's body in danger when you don't have to.

 

The word is a live actor riding a cgi object is the hardest special effect in the business.

That's an excuse.

What not use a stunt double? Why would you when your already paying people to do sfx and why put someone's body in danger when you don't have to.

Why not just have every movie use cgi to do their stunts? Its probably cheaper. There are no union dues. Insurance claims for injury? No scale pay.

In fact - why even have actors?

 

"The word is a live actor riding a cgi object is the hardest special effect in the business."



It seems so. Check out the scenes of the heroes riding on the back of the CGI creature in the arena.


I suspect that those scenes which are awkward are due to working under a deadline. My guess is that if they had more time to work on it, it would have been more convincing.


But scenes like that fuel the argument against CGI.


Still, I don't let it ruin my appreciation of a film that did so much right.

 

ILM isn't on the cutting edge? Aren't they the leaders of CGI? Aren't they leading the way in special effects.

Sorry that's a typeo on my part. I meant to say they are on the cutting edge.

 

The Naboo scenes - I'm talking about the exterior shots not interior. In "downtown" Naboo, if that's not cgi, please tell me where this city is. its so beautiful - no trash, no pollution, spaceships and transports, wideopen spaces. Man, where is that city?

They filme that in Italy. Heck you can find the place where they stayed at on Naboo in Italy.

 

As I said earlier on this board (or maybe another one) CGI is great to create scenes which would be practically impossible without it (eg Yoda v Dooku), but I don't think it hurts to sacrifice a bit of expanse for a bit of grittiness from time to time, by using sets, miniatures, puppets etc instead of CGI.Some say that CGI needs to be used to keep up with the play these days, but I reckon using it more sparingly and having a more gritty feel would really set a movie of this kind apart from its modern-day peers. OT has an earthiness to it that can never be replicated by CGI and I still believe that was a big part of its appeal. A mixture of CGI and more traditional methods is what I'm advocating.

 

Movie Critics:
If you have a movie w/ no sfx......thats good.

If you have a movie that is all animation......thats good.

If you try and combine the two......its evil incarnate.


I just don't see this way of thinking. As Lucas said, "All movies are fake." Whether its a cgi background or an old fashion wood and paint mock-up of New York City. It's still fake. Movies are people pretending to be someone that they aren't in a place where they are not. When you begin to agrue over the level of fakness in movies it becomes upserd.

 

Would you like to see Anakin kissing a CGI Padme in front of a CGI fireplace?



How about a Vader mask CGI'd over Hayden's face?



There is validity in DarthDuckie's argument about what he calls the "grittiness" of live-action over CGI. I describe it as the difference between something that the actor 'could reach out and touch', compared to something he 'could ALMOST reach out and touch'.



CGI has not reached the point where it is the equivalent of solid objects...yet.

 

Ok then how would you do a place like Coruscant? They use set's and models and minitures. But what they can do with those they use CGI for. A matpainting would not work with a place like Coruscant. But minitures, models and CGI do work.

 

anidanami124, you seem to want to make an 'ALL or NOTHING' argument.



Okay, I'll bite.



Why did Lucas hire actors? Why didn't he make EVERYTHING CGI?



I've already said that I like CGI. It just hasn't reached the point where it can convincingly replace EVERYTHING on the screen.



Your argument seems to be "Don't say anything bad about CGI! If something doesn't look quite real, it's YOUR FAULT, not the artists!"


I'm telling you that I'm happy CGI exists and I'm happy that it's available for Lucas to use. At the same time, I can see what critics are talking about when they point out it's weaknesses.



Doesn't that seem reasonable?

 

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that there are things that work just as well. CGi for AOTC worked very well. They used it where they needed it. Heck there is only one bad use of CGi in the whole movie. The rest is done very well. If not for the fact that we all found out about the CGI clone troops that would never be talked about.

What I'm saying is this CGI = bad and no good. Well what should they go back and use stop motion? I mean at some point you have to use what is going to give you the best look. In this case with AOTC miniture, models, set, real places, and CGI worked. For Naboo and Tatooine they used real places and CGI what need to be CGIed. Such as the water fall. Ever thing else is real. Coruscant can't be done with out minitures, models, and CGI. Sure you could use matpaintings. But from what they were showing it would not work really well.