The biggest fault in AOTC was...

My list of nit-picks is short. That was my point. If that's one of my few complaints with AOTC that I can come up with, then I have few complaints.

Or were you speaking of the nit-pick list compiled by everyone?

 

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?

Because they already have.

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

Sure. Which they did.

 

[/i]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?[/i]

I'm saying there's more of a human element in rotk than in either two prequel films.

If you look at usage of cgi in tpm you see that throughout the course of the film they encounter characters that play a role in the film that are cgi.

In lotr you don't see any characters that have roles worth significance (save Gollum) that are cgi.

I think the same goes for aotc. cgi characters throughout with interaction with human characters. The quality of the cgi is without question - its awesome. But as it relates to the human element of the film, I think it might leave the viewer cold and lacking in any emotional attachment to the characters.

Case in point: the battle scene with the gungans versus the droids. that battle lacks any compelling condition of emotional attachment to either side.

The opposite would be the rohan cavalry charge on the Orcs. True 90% of wide angle shots of that scene are all cgi. But the scene works and is full of emotional attachment to the rohan fighters.

 

"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."

Why not leave the actor in and then paint him out in post? It would eliminate problems that can come from things like eyelines and physical interaction.

 

Shelley, you're not getting me.


In one take, Hayden plays it a little angrier because Natalie is saying her lines with a stern tone in her voice. He is responding to that.


In another take, he's leering, and she shows that she's annoyed by her tone.


In yet another take, he plays the scene 'younger' and sounds hurt, so she responds with a tone of compassion in her voice.



In those examples, his performance doesn't 'mix and match' with hers. His performance in Take Three is geared to her performance in Take Three. To have him play hurt (from one take) and her play angry at his leering (in a different take) undermines what the actors are doing. Actors play off each other. That's how they make it feel 'real'.


Yes, dialogue is often edited in other films, and it sometimes leads to actors responding to something that is no longer in the final cut of the film.


Lucas has taken it to a new level by splitting the screen, using half of one take and half of another.

 

Shelley, you're not getting me.

I'm getting you perfectly well. You are making good points and I understand them. I just don't agree.

Yes, each take is going to be somewhat different. But being able to pick and choose also enables the director to put together the two takes which he feels fit best together. Maybe Hayden was angrier in some take and Natalie responded to that...but that's not what Lucas wanted. He sees another take where Natalie's reaction was closer to what he wanted. Therefore, he can use it.

 

You could do Coruscant w/out CGI. It's called using minitures. It worked for Theed. It worked for Helm's Deep and Minis Tirith. It worked for the DS and Star Destroyers. Sure building a miniture of Coruscant would have been massive and used a lot of resources, but it could've been done and we (the audience) would've have been please if it was done well.


No for two reason's:

1) Coruscant is not a small city
2) Coruscant is a planet wide city.

If something happened to your said minitures that's a lot of money out the window. On top of that It's a lot easer for them to get what they really want out of the city from CGI then from minitures. It looked nothing like a place here on earth.

 

The next step is for Lucas to say that he likes the way Hayden's eyes and nose looked in 'Take One', but prefers the way he bit his lip in 'Take Three'...



...so the editors are going to be at their computer consoles, splicing the top of his face from one take with the lower half of his face from another take.


Then people will watch the film and criticize Hayden because there's something 'not quite right' about the 'expression' on his face.

 

The argument could be made for Coruscant that models for close ups and CGI for fast shots (the chase after Zam) would work better than pure CGI.

 

The argument could be made for Coruscant that models for close ups and CGI for fast shots (the chase after Zam) would work better than pure CGI.

No it wouldn't the set's you would have to make that the minitures you would have to make would a lot of money there. On top of that if something happens to those it will set you back. On top of that still you are trying to show a place that looks nothing like a city here on earth up close or far away.

Not ever last thing can be done with mintures, and models, and sets. Onless you want power rangers.

 

If you say so, Leias_love_slave.

 

It's not about making it look like it belongs on earth, it's about making it look real and not a visual effect.

'If something happens' to them? What, like lightning striking the miniatures? Come on.

 

I have a list in my head of nit-picks I've heard throughout the last few years hear in the JC...

Here's a some of my favorites....

I don't like the color scheme of the arena..

I don't like Bail Organa's turtleneck

The clone war battle was a useless set piece...

the CG arena was bad.....

and now yours.

 

If he's already splitting the screen in half, why not split it four ways?



Shelley, I'm exaggerating to make my point, but not by much. In seriousness, go back and watch the scene outside the nightclub or the scene in Dex's Diner.


Pay close attention to Obi-Wan's real beard turning into a glued-on beard and then back to a real beard. Even the shape of his face changes because of a weight difference in the months that passed before the reshoots.


Why does Obi-Wan speak to Anakin with kindness and patience when he returns his lightsaber, yet when they enter the club, he's back to being annoyed?


Ewan's performance was undermined because months later, Lucas decided to go back and refilm a 'kinder, gentler' Obi-Wan returning the saber. That's fine, but it doesn't match his tone when they enter the club.

 

I don't think his "tone" was very different.... he wasn't hugging Anakin.... Was he pi$$ed in the club? Not really..... he joked around a bit with "going to get a drink" line....

I can see the wig and no wig stuff (which is still nit-picking) but the different tone stuff is a stretch....

 

Listen to his voice. Either you hear it or you don't.


"For a drink." You thought he was being funny? He sounded annoyed to me. Just as he was annoyed through most of the chase.


And Lucas noticed it because months later, he went back and reshot it.

 

It's not about making it look like it belongs on earth, it's about making it look real and not a visual effect.

'If something happens' to them? What, like lightning striking the miniatures? Come on.

Like them being damged. The CGI works for Coruscnat. Models and minitures would not. It would not give GL the samethings he wanted. Using CGI did it gave him the tools he need to make Coruscant the planet I and other had always wanted to see it as. A city and planet that is the center of ever thing in the galaxy.

 

He sounded the same to me. It doesn't strike me as being any more different than Anakin and Obi Wan going from being joking and playful in the elevator to being cross with each other in Padme's apartment. That's the way their relationship is: hot and cold, friendly and prickly.

 

He sounded the same to you but he didn't sound the same to me and he didn't sound the same to Lucas.


That's why he went to the expense of reshooting the scene outside the club.


If you watch that scene and don't think that Obi-Wan is annoyed with Anakin, then I won't be able to change your perception. To me, Obi-Wan is annoyed throughout the chase and into the bar.


Edit: Exactly, Shelley. All the "prickly" lines were filmed during principal photography and the "friendly" shots were filmed months later and 'spliced in'.


It shows...


...to many people.


Why not get the appropriate performance in the first place?

 

Yes, miniatures would've worked for certain parts of Coruscant. The Jedi Temple for example.

[image=http://www.theforce.net/multimedia/archive/Images/Episode_1/Locations/Coruscant/swig062.jpg]

Build the towers and main platform, then fill in the backround with CGI. Completely eliminates the risk of breaking suspension of disbelief that's taken when something is done in full CGI.

[image=http://img-nex.theonering.net/images/scrapbook/11563.jpg]

Miniatures work by themselves...

[image=http://img-nex.theonering.net/images/scrapbook/7726.jpg]

..and when filled in with CGI from a distance. I know the "But it's night!" complaint is going to pop up, but I couldn't find one of the overhead or zooming in from a distance shots of either.

 

Why not get the appropriate performance in the first place?

Maybe because when you're immersed in filming a movie, you don't see the whole picture, but when you step back and take a look at it after some time has passed, you do, and say, "Gee, Obi Wan seems a little too cross now that I view everything in context. It didn't seem that way at the time, but now it does." That's why there are reshoots and pick-up shots in the first place.

 

`Why not leave the actor in and then paint him out in post? It would eliminate problems that can come from things like eyelines and physical interaction.'

I've wondered that myself, but I'm not sure how good it'd work. Would the eyeline be about right? In Dexs case for example.

`The argument could be made for Coruscant that models for close ups and CGI for fast shots (the chase after Zam) would work better than pure CGI.'

Are there any models used for Coruscant at all?

 

If the character was taller than the actor then the actor could just wear something on his head to show where the eyes would be. Ahmed Best wore a Jar Jar head on top of his own.

I haven't seen any exterior models for Coruscant, except for the industry area in Episode II I believe.

 

Why wasn't AOTC nominated for BEST ANIMATED FILM at the Oscars? It's a double-standard!

 

Yes, miniatures would've worked for certain parts of Coruscant. The Jedi Temple for example.

No it wouldn't not ever last thing needs to be done with miniatures. What looks good in one movie will not look good in another.

For Jurassic Park Spielberg had two chooses the old way or the new way. The new way was much better. GL used the what was better choose at the time. CGI works better for Coruscant then miniatures. Just think if he used minitures for the opening shot:

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/918.jpg]

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/naboocruiser.jpg]

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/naboocruiser.jpg]


Know of those would work well at all as minitures. They work far better as CGI.

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/o9.jpg]

You can't make that or find a place like it on earth.