The biggest fault in AOTC was...

An effect is an effect, whether it's blue screen, matte painting, rubber masks, models, CGI, or what have you. It still baffles me that people find the computer generated variety so objectionable.

 

I never denied anyone their opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it and feel that 50% of the time it's a flock of sheep mentality.

Let's not forget that the Old Trilogy was bashed non-stop for it's use of special effects over story. Nothing's really changed, only the method.

"It still baffles me that people find the computer generated variety so objectionable."

I agree. No one complained that there were too many Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or too many effects shots in Terminator. This complaint is only ever lodged at Lucas' own work. From what I've seen and read of his methods, Lucas never tries to fit special effects into his story. He imagines these huge ideas and tries to tailor the special effects to fit these.

 

"There's nothing wrong with CGI. You people whine too much." - Bib Fortuna, Twi'lek

"It seems not matter what GL does he can never please some people. He does something he gets criticized; he doesn't do something he still gets criticized." - I_AM_A_CLONER

"It still baffles me that people find the computer generated variety so objectionable." - Durwood

"I just don't happen to agree with it and feel that 50% of the time it's a flock of sheep mentality." - RolandofGilead

---

So people that don't like the obessive special effects are nothing but sheep, whine too much and critize over anything? Sorry for sharing my opinion. I'll keep it to myself in future since I have a different viewpoint. [face_plain]

 

No one's stopping you from posting your opinion, and no one specifically said they were talking about you, or any of the other posters here. That would be flaming.

A legitimate difference of opinion does not mean that we dislike you.

I talk about a sheep mentality because right now SW is the media's whipping boy. We get nonstop snide remarks and jokes hurled at the prequels, and when someone comes here to post those very same things it's as if they're regurgitating what they read rather than actually looking at the film with a critical eye.

If this is not you, and obviously by your posts it is not, then I apologize for making you feel as if it were.

RoG

 

That's exactly it, RoG. The OT too was slammed for being light on plot/character development and heavy on the effects.

I have no problem with CGI as long as it's well done. And the CGI in the prequels is top-notch. People who swear they can spot CGI a mile a way prove themselves wrong by pointing to some effect as being "obviously CGI" when in fact it was done the "old fashioned way." Not to mention, the prequels did use a lot of models, miniatures, sets, etc. They worked very hard on the effects, regardless of whether they were CGI, sets, models, etc. Lucas himself worked very hard on the prequels, and he spent a long time on the story. Yes, the special effects were a large consideration, just as they were when he made the OT. But the story came first.

 

There are miniatures used in Coruscant. Padme's appartment for example, is a miniature. So as several people have already posted before me, George/ILM does use several different methods, not only CG.

 

Padme's appartment - a model, digital background, and cgi effects all combined.
Why? Because it got the result Lucas wanted - and that goes for every single effects shot - they're done the way they are because that's the closest ILM can get to Lucas' vision of a scene - that's ILM's role - to make Lucas' vision real by whatever methods are best.
Models, cgi, puppets - it doesn't matter - it's the closeness to the realisation of Lucas' ideas that's important.

 

No one's stopping you from posting your opinion, and no one specifically said they were talking about you, or any of the other posters here. That would be flaming.

Then why in your very first post in this thread do you tell people to "give it a rest"? blur75, the originator of this thread, is a new poster. How would he/she know that this is a much discussed topic? At the most, you could direct them to an older thread where this was discussed. And in your post it sounds like you are stating many of your opinions as indisputable fact, which makes those with differing opinions feel as though they have no right to state their thoughts.

The whole point of the argument (and an opinion) is not against CG, but the amount of it. It does not help when you say the OT and the PT have effects. A blind man could tell you that. And to the person who said all clones were supposed to be the same height -- didn't ANH, ESB, and ROTJ show Stormtroopers with human actors? We couldn't really tell the differences of height then. Although I'm not 100% sure if they are still clones at that point. If someone has evidence that they are not clones, point me to it.

Here is a Spielberg quote that really drives home what many of us feel:

---

[b]Spielberg slams CGI[/b]

Steven Spielberg has slammed the overuse of computer-generated images, more commonly known as CGI, in modern films and revealed that he tried to use them sparingly in his imminent sci-fi flick, [i]Minority Report[/i].

"I am consumed with their performances telling the story. I tried very hard not to make this a special-effects movie," the Hollywood legend stated. Tom Cruise, Tigerland star Colin Farrell, Max Von Sydow and Samantha Morton (Sweet And Lowdown) take the leads in Minority Report, the tale of a government agency who can detect crimes before they're committed.

During his interview with The Houston Chronicle, the Jaws director even said he believes that, if he'd had CGI when making his earlier films, it may have spoiled the tension. If Jaws were made today, "the shark would be fully CG," Spielberg said, reasoning, "it wouldn't be a better movie. I would have used the shark too much. I would have abused the digital tool and had too many shark shots, instead of letting the unknown be the threat."

In fact, Spielberg even believes he was, "rescued by the limits of technology. But today, with very few limits to express our imaginations, we must rescue ourselves from indulging in the technology we now have."

Spielberg considers CGI, "just another tool - a means to an end. It shouldn't be an end itself. Besides, it dulls the impact if every single scene has something so extraordinary you can't top yourself. We have to exact a whole new discipline - to temper our enthusiasm and say how much is enough."

Similarly, Spielberg explained that the driving force behind Minority Report was the plot, commenting, "I wanted to unravel a murder mystery, not dwell on the toys."

[i]Minority Report[/i], which is based on a short story by cult sci-fi novellist Philip K Dick, opens in the UK on July 4th.[hr][/blockquote]

This does not mean Spielberg is criticizing the prequels (I know he loved AOTC). But I agree with his way of thinking.

 

If the clone troopers were badly done I'd see the complaint, but they're not. They're extremly well done.... Using puppets or models or stop motion, it's all "fake".... CGI is just another tool..... would guys in a suit make the movie a better one?

I doubt it would....

 

OK. That's Spielberg's point of view.

Funny how the media downplays or ignores quotes from actors who like working with bluescreen and CGI (Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee), while blaring headlines about someone "slamming CGI." Similarly, I recall someone on this board getting angry when another person quoted Ian McDiarmid praising bluescreen, and saying, "Stop using that quote!" Why? I mean, CGI- and bluescreen-haters use the same quotes over and over again to try and transform their anti-CGI opinions into fact.

Spielberg not only liked AOTC, he also said that TPM was "mesmerizing."

 

Cgi releases aliens from being bound to human forms - now an alien can look like anything, not just a guy in a suit and mask.

 

Moreover, Lucas realizes that it is hard to talk to empty space. That's why he had the actors who provided the voices for Taun We and Lama Su present on the set when filming the Kamino scenes.

 

Funny how the media downplays or ignores quotes from actors who like working with bluescreen and CGI (Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee), while blaring headlines about someone "slamming CGI."

But the experiences of Ian and Chris (who both happen to be very good in their PT roles) are nothing like that of Ewan or Liam imo. Make Ian and Chris spend 8 hours in front of bluescreen, hanging off of things with wind blasting their faces, redoing 50 takes, acting against nothing, and I'm sure they'd be kind of tired of it too. Chris did a good job acting in front of nothing in the scene where he is at a table with those Seperatists aliens, and in his fight with Yoda, but he is still lucky he spends a great deal of time with human actors like Obi Wan's interrogation. Ewan has to spend so much time with Dex, Jar Jar (TPM) and Taun We, not to mention so many action scenes...I can see where some of his frustrations come from.

Similarly, I recall someone on this board getting angry when another person quoted Ian McDiarmid praising bluescreen, and saying, "Stop using that quote!"

That would've been me, I remember. Dinvader literally uses the same long quotes twenty times, and he does not add his own opinions afterwards, he just copy and pastes the entire 5 paragraph quote as if that was his answer. I do not know of any one else that does this except for him. I will at least try to put in my own thoughts as well, with maybe something like that Spielberg quote (the first time I ever used it) to round out my argument. And I made it clear these are my opinions. I never stated it as fact. I don't have to put in "imo" every time.

A great filmmaker once said a film should be like a piece of music. There should be slower, calmer passages (the lows), and then a build up to sensational highs every now and then. It should not be like a constant, crashing symphony all the way through or your ears will start to bleed. It's not music, it's just noise. Look to Beethoven's Emperor's Concerto for a great example of music with lows, crescendos, and occasional, uplifting highs.

I think the OT is like that. (Every once in a while we get the thrilling moments like the Asteroid scene or the Trench Run) I think the PT is more like a loud and heavy Metallica song, with not-so-subtle uses of CG as the constant "highs". It dulls the senses eventually. For this viewer, it dulled me to the point I just didn't care anymore.

 

There are plenty of highs and lows in the PT..... Just because there's CG in a scene doesn't mean it's a "High Note"...

Give some examples JW....

For this viewer, it dulled me to the point I just didn't care anymore.

Are you planning on seeing Ep3? If you do, you care. If not, then hang it up.....

It's like posting 4,249 times in a Battlefield Earth forum when you thought the movie sucked. Move on.

 

But the experiences of Ian and Chris (who both happen to be very good in their PT roles) are nothing like that of Ewan or Liam imo. Make Ian and Chris spend 8 hours in front of bluescreen, hanging off of things with wind blasting their faces, redoing 50 takes, acting against nothing, and I'm sure they'd be kind of tired of it too. Chris did a good job acting in front of nothing in the scene where he is at a table with those Seperatists aliens, and in his fight with Yoda, but he is still lucky he spends a great deal of time with human actors like Obi Wan's interrogation. Ewan has to spend so much time with Dex, Jar Jar (TPM) and Taun We,

I don't know about Dex, but Jar Jar and Taun We (and Lama Su) had human stand-ins.

I'm sure it was hard to work with bluescreen. Bluescreen and greenscreen, both of which have been around for a long time, have always been hard to work with. But an actor's job is to act, to rise to the challenge. Acting in a challenging situation is far from new.

That would've been me, I remember. Dinvader literally uses the same long quotes twenty times,

So do bashers.

and he does not add his own opinions afterwards, he just copy and pastes the entire 5 paragraph quote as if that was his answer.

Maybe he feels that the quote explains his point of view far better than he could. You just used a lengthy Spielberg quote to do pretty much the same thing.

I do not know of any one else that does this except for him. I will at least try to put in my own thoughts as well, with maybe something like that Spielberg quote (the first time I ever used it)

OK.

to round out my argument. And I made it clear these are my opinions. I never stated it as fact. I don't have to put in "imo" every time.

Fair enough.

A great filmmaker once said a film should be like a piece of music. There should be slower, calmer passages (the lows), and then a build up to sensational highs every now and then. It should not be like a constant, crashing symphony all the way through or your ears will start to bleed. It's not music, it's just noise. Look to Beethoven's Emperor's Concerto for a great example of music with lows, crescendos, and occasional, uplifting highs.

Yeah, and that's why I like the prequels. There are quiet moments interspersed with the action and the stunning visuals. TPM does this better than AOTC. Interestingly, people complained that TPM didn't have enough action. Then they turn around and complain that AOTC has too much action.

I think the OT is like that. (Every once in a while we get the thrilling moments like the Asteroid scene or the Trench Run) I think the PT is more like a loud and heavy Metallica song, with not-so-subtle uses of CG as the constant "highs". It dulls the senses eventually. For this viewer, it dulled me to the point I just didn't care anymore

I did. I didn't find it dulling at all. And when I don't care for something anymore, I usually ignore it.

 

Thing is, bluescreen sound stages are going to be the standard in a few years simply because Lucas is proving now what a huge cost savings it can be and how much more freedom it actually gives the director, so any actor that detests bluescreen now better get out of the business because bluescreen is not going away.

That said, Ewan McGregor has said that he is very glad to be a part of the Star Wars legacy and recognizes that bluescreen work is a personal challenge that he has to overcome.

I don't know about Dex, but Jar Jar and Taun We (and Lama Su) had human stand-ins.

Dex did, too. The scenes are rehearsed with the stand-in until the actors know what they're doing and are comfortable with the scene, then the stand-in is pulled and the actor plays the scene by himself.

 

To give my two cents, I would agree with blur and neobaggins, too much cgi degrades the value of the human beings in the film.

Acting suffers (how can it not, you're talking to nothing or a wall), cgi becomes the backbone of the film, and you're left with 50% of content in the film.

To reply to the comparison of the rotk reference, I think the main difference between that film and tpm or aotc is that none of the speaking characters (safe for gollum) is cgi created. But tpm and aotc is awash in them. Plus I think cgi is used to augment the movie in rotk rather than being the movie.

Just a thought. Fire at will.

 

Plus I think cgi is used to augment the movie in rotk rather than being the movie.

So what you're saying, you could completely eliminate the human actors from the prequels and you'd still have a comprehensible and enjoyable film?

Of course you're not saying that, but I also disagree that Lucas and Peter Jackson don't have the same sensibilties when it comes to using effects in their films. Remember, Lucas is the man who invented the use of special effects to tell the story, and it's a lesson he has not forgotten.

 

JohnWilliams00, I think the point you're making is a valid one, about the slow moments in a film contrasting with more intense ones. Yet one of the criticisms I hear about ESB (my favorite) is that there are long periods in that film that are too slow and drag on.


I think part of the reason for such differing perspectives is that the audience is such a 'mixed bag'. I know that 'Star Wars' appeals on many different levels.


Some focus on the action, while others want more interpersonal drama. Some want each lightsaber duel to be bigger than the last one.


I recently read an interview with another directer (I believe it was Richard Donner) and he was commenting that there is so much going on on the screen in these films that it's confusing to the eye.


The thing is, if you polled the fans to find out what they want in Episode III, you might get the idea that what they want is to actually SEE the 'Clone Wars' depicted on the screen......but without CGI. How could you accomplish that?


CGI is the logical choice to tell a story like AOTC. ESB didn't need it, although I imagine if it was made today, we would have seen more ground fighting on Hoth and even Wampas invading the Rebel Base.


Would that improve ESB? I doubt it. But I'm biased. I fell in love with that film the way it was. I don't really want it changed. A newer, younger audience probably isn't attached to it the way I am.

 

All of the SW movies rely on that formula: quiet moments, then intense ones.

One of the things I really like about the prequels is that there is so much happening on the screen. You don't catch all of it in one viewing. It is overwhelming at first, but I don't see what's so bad about that, and indeed, other movies are praised for it.

 

Durwood: "Thing is, bluescreen sound stages are going to be the standard in a few years simply because Lucas is proving now what a huge cost savings it can be and how much more freedom it actually gives the directer..."



Actually, that statement just depresses me.


So while movie tickets go up, and actors' salaries go up, set building and location shooting is going to be thrown out the window to SAVE MONEY. The thought of that makes me sad.


While I appreciate and enjoy CGI, I think that in other types of films, it should be used sparingly. If they want to save money, stop paying actors twenty million dollars for a few months of work.


On a side note, while I do support CGI, I despise the idea of splicing Natalie's performance and Hayden's performance together from different takes. Let the actors play off each other when it's practical. It does affect the final result.

 

I don't see how. Maybe Hayden was better in one take and Natalie was better in another. I think it's great that they have the freedom to use the best takes. And it's not an uncommon practice.

I agree that some actors are overpaid. Really, there is no reason to pay an actor $20 mil per pic. Which is why I respect Lucas's refusal to buy into that sort of stuff and not shell out obscene amounts just to have Leonardo DiCaprio play Anakin, but instead use an unknown.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep costs as small as possible.

 

I fell in love with that film the way it was. I don't really want it changed.

It's like the wishlists and rumorlists for the
Ultimate Edition changes to the OT. I've seen things like CG Jabba in ROTJ, CG tauntauns, etc.
That would be a crime in my opinion. They should've never replaced the puppet Lapti Nek scene to begin with. It's not CG, but I miss the Ewok celebration. If you grow up with something, and you remember it a certain way, it's hard to accept a major change. They did make some great improvements with CG in the SE, but some things should never be taken out and made CG.

As far as AOTC goes, when I saw it in the theaters I thought the clones' hair looked a bit too light (when they're getting their helmets), but I chalked it up
as "well, we never saw the Tipoca City hair salon, they probably got some highlights."
Other than that, I thought the effects in the movie were pretty good.
Think about Ray Harryhausen films. Sure they're old and the the special fx were clunky, but groundbreaking for their time. People still love those movies. How often do people these days bash those effects? If they do, they just don't appreciate or understand the resources and techniques that were available at the time. Same goes for the movies that are coming out today. I'm sure glad that Lucas waited as long as he did to make the PT. I'm sure if it had been released in the 80's it would have been cool, but the choices on his palette now are so much greater, that he can do more now than in the 80's. For Lucas to achieve his vision, he has had to use CG and not just models, and for the nitpicking of the CG, would it have been better if he had waited 15-20 years for "perfect" CG? Or wait 15-20 years to make everything out of models? I'd hate to be the guy
walking through the desert operating the steady-cam for the pod race.

 

Shelley, I'm talking about the tone in one actor's voice, and the way the other responds to it. There is a flow.


When you're looking at Natalie and Hayden sitting on the couch, and the left side of the screen is from a different take than what's on the right side, how can the actors play off of each other?


You don't see the value in letting the actor see what the other actor is doing in the scene?

 

when I saw it in the theaters I thought the clones' hair looked a bit too light

Add this one to your List of favorite AOTC Nit-Picks.