Saga Prequels or originals?

Well, IMO of course, the lava looks kind of fake (video gamish), and Anakin and Obi-Wan barely break a sweat (until the end of the battle, at least). It's hard to tell the difference between the ROTS video game and the actual movie TBH.

Given the look of Musafar and the woeful lack of effect on either of them it's pretty difficult to take the lava/magma seriously.

I wonder whether the whole CGI interpretation thing is a bit of a generational issue. For me, no matter how well done it is, large scale CGI always feels synthetic and shallow, whereas a model or puppet, despite its limitations, creates more of an impression of depth and reality for my eye. Others, however, see it in completely the opposite way and are struck by the 'fakeness' of things like stop motion or puppetry, but are quite happy in large scale virtual environments.

I'm with you, Yak. I concur it very likely is.

I agree with this. I'm on the opposite side of your view here. I very much think (in general, not in all cases) its a generational issue.

For me, good CGI tries to be as close to reality (or a reality) as possible. And as such the visuals are stunning to see. Whereas stop-motion and puppetry appears to be 'stand-in' materiel for lack of either living creatures or technology.

I had no idea that Mustafar was mostly a model. It looked very CGIish.

I'd guess that how much we buy into effects also has to do with how invested we are in the story. The more invested a person is, the less likely they are to pay attention to the minute details and the "window dressing" -- which is what special effects are, in a way. As an example, I know that the graphics for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are objectively terrible. Yet, they've never bothered me or taken me out of the experience. You might say that's because they're "uniformly" terrible, but I don't really think that's true. There are sections of the game that are far more detailed because they''re pre-rendered (think of the area right after the drawbridge in Hyrule Castle town or the exterior of the Temple of Time) but looking at those and then entering a comparatively lower resolution area never bothered me. Why? Because I wasn't at all focused on the graphics, instead I was playing out an adventure.

When people say, for example, that puppet Yoda looks real to them but CGI Yoda looks completely fake, I don't doubt that to them it's true. But I happen to like both equally. If I step back though, and look at Yoda not in the context of the film, I think both the puppet and the CGI look fake in different ways. CGI Yoda is not detailed enough (especially in terms of fabric and skin texture) compared to the puppet. He also has an almost shiny, plastic feel to him. But puppet Yoda can have really fake looking movements and his eyes…well…look like puppet eyes rather than CGI Yoda's eyes which, I think, look much more real.

Honestly, the more bored you are by a film, the more likely you are to pick up on any visual inconsistencies, regardless of how much work the effects department has put in.

I think there's an element of that, PH, but I also think it's a bit of a chicken and egger. Yes, a viewer will be likely to focus on things like special effects if he or she's bored, but on the other hand, a lack of engagement caused by these things may cause the viewer to be bored in the first place.

Sometimes it's not boredom at all. Some of us just like credibility and the effects in RotS don't have in regarding Musafar in my book.

But is anyone really engaged by the special effects though? I always thought engagement was more towards characters and story. Special effects are there to tell the story and make it look epic, but if you don't care about the characters or what's happening, then you're going to spend much more time scrutinizing the special effects than someone who is actually interested and invested in their fates.

Plus, a lot of times, viewers can't even tell what's CGI or not. I've read of people who thought the characters on Utapau were CGI when they're people in costumes. I even heard this the other day: that people thought the green chick in Star Trek (the 2009 film) was photoshopped to be green. Umm…no. She had green powder/paint all over her body.

But then how would anyone ever enjoy old movies where things are blatantly fake? I mean, I've been watching some stuff from the 60s and, believe me, it's blatantly obvious how faked it is because it's the best they could do at the time. But because I care so much about the characters and because the actors can really sell the idea that the situation is actually real, then I can believe it too and enjoy myself.

If it looks like a cartoon, it's hard for me not to treat like a cartoon.

By that logic, if it looks like a puppet, shouldn't you treat it like it belongs in a puppet-show?

No, because I think that puppet Yoda looks a lot more real than the puppets in puppet shows.

CGI looks like they stuck TCW characters into live-action, though.

Special effects are like referees in sports. If they're really good, you barely notice that they're there. If they're really bad, they're all you notice. For me, special effects don't really engage, but they are more than capable of disengaging, and that's where it becomes such a personal thing and a matter of what one's eye responds to.

When I watch TESB, I don't even consider Yoda as a puppet. He's a living, breathing character. If I stop and think about it, I can clearly see the limitations of the puppet, but I don't stop and think about it. When I watch CG Yoda, however, I'm constantly distracted by his lack of visual depth and the fact that he's not really there.

That's only true if you're using things like Sesame Street as a comparison point though.

Plus, it depends on what you're comparing. Eyes here:




versus eyes here:



In the ESB picture, for example, it's blatantly clear that the eyes are fake. They aren't wet, they are pointing in subtly different directions. With the ROTS eyes, though, you can see the moisture and even reflections of the lightning in Yoda's eyes.

Yoda's head in the ESB picture also definitely looks like it came out of a mold (because it did).

It really depends on what parameters you look at and, subjectively, what you prefer.

The eyes may look more fake, but Yoda is
A. A different species than human
B. 900 years old

Besides, the rest of his features give him a rugged, realistic look, so I can overlook the really small details such as the eyes.

I guess I'll just pose the same question to you as I did Cushing's Admirer: what about older shows? I've been watching Star Trek: The Original Series and almost everything on that show looks fake. Like Kirk fighting the Gorn. It's a dude in a suit -- there's no way around it. But it's still an enjoyable episode because I care about what happens to Kirk and the characters aboard the Enterprise act as though he's in real danger. They are concerned about the Gorn and see it as a real threat and so I can suspend my disbelief as well.

Or do you find it difficult to enjoy older material?

See -- this is what I'm getting at. You're engaged by Yoda right? You care about him, his interactions with Luke and what is happening in the story, correct? That's why you're able to easily suspend your disbelief. You said yourself -- you don't "stop and think about it." However, you clearly do "stop and think about" Yoda in the PT. You think he lacks visual depth and you mull over the fact that he's not really there.

But the dude in the suit is actually there. No matter how fake looking he is, he's there, so there's not that real / virtual detachment. Some people would look at that and balk. Personally, I wouldn't. I do balk at some newer material though, which to me is about was well integrated special effects wise as Roger Rabbit.

So to answer your question; no.

I always prefer CGI on things like yoda if it's done right

Time magazine apparenly thought Tion Medon was CGI... and they never responded to my email!

I never said I can't enjoy old films. I have seen many of Lee's, Cushing's, and even a few of Price's and I can enjoy them because it's *them* and they try pretty hard. They are the credibility of their work for me. I simply like modern effects not to look blatantly fake.

But so are a lot of CGI characters -- when Anakin and Padmé are on Geonosis, for example, they're not just miming the movements. There are people in blue suits who are attacking them. Same with Grevious' robo-guards. The CGI artists basically just color over them. Actors who fight CGI characters aren't reacting to nothing.

I guess I just don't understand how you can suspend your disbelief for the Gorn (who is obviously fake looking) but not for the (in your opinion) obviously fake looking CGI characters.

Yep, I'm familiar with the process, PH. It's not the actors responding to nothing that's the issue, it's what get's put over the top of the actors which creates the problem for me.

I'm not asking you to understand, PH. As said in my earlier post, this a really subjective thing. What visually distracts and jars me out of a story and what offends someone else's eye will be completely different. It's not a conscious thing. It just is what it is.

Okay, fair enough. I do wonder how growing up with video games might have affected perceptions of the CGI, though, as there's no denying that games are increasingly inching towards photorealism.

Yeah, I think growing up with video games has probably had a significant effect. I grew up with Daleks and Cybermen on black and white TV, so I'm a bit off the pace!