Was the PT a lil late to the party?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by StarWarsFanBoy, Apr 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
  1. StarWarsFanBoy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2004
    star 1
    Ok heres what i mean by was it a lil late to the party.


    in 1977and star wars was released and was a massive hit and not just because of the great story and cast but because of ground-breaking effects it had.

    Thanks to Star Wars movies could push effects further than they could have gone before.

    Now here is were my Q lies. because star wars developed a way for movies to go further than they have ever been before was it a double edge soward for the PT when they were released because CG and the like had been used in abundce over the years leading up to the PT and by the time the PT got here effect had been so over done that it was nothing new and caused be people not to enjoy the flims as much as they could have if he made them ealier?

    Hopfully im making my self clear in this post.
  2. ThrawnRocks Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2004
    star 6
    I think you've got a good point. If you look at the LOTR movies, the first two had CGI done by ILM. For ROTK they used a different company. You'll notice how the CGI is so much bbetter in ROTK. Allthough the CGI in ROTS (and esp. Yoda) looks really realistic, it still isn't cutting edge, IMO. :(
  3. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    I dont know about " abundance " and that might be the answer - that it wasnt really used in abundance( CGI ) until the PT and never as seamlessly as the PT and post TPM movies, hence right on time to the party.
  4. BauconBatista Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2004
    star 4
    I've been thinking of this as well, actually.

    Here's a good read on this matter :)
  5. Boola Cronk Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 5, 1999
    star 2
    The special effects in TPM were still ground breaking. Since it came out in 1999 there werent a whole lot of movies before it that were using those types of effects. ILM has been expanding on those effects ever since Jurassic Park (1993) which was the first movie with living, breathing, believable, computer generated creatures.

    Thrawn, ILM did not do any of the LOTR movies. Its a company called WETA Digital. They did all 3 LOTR.

    Also how can you say that the effects in ROTS arent cutting edge? ILM has the best of the best animaters working on the SW films. Each of the PT films have broke new ground.

    TPM - pod race and crash physics/dynamics, animated charaters/actors, etc.

    AOTC - photorealistic people, clones, jar jar's robes, Yoda, and Yoda's hair.

    ROTS - The space battle scenes alone, shown in the trailers is a good example of the cutting edge stuff but since I am pretty much spoiler free I will have to wait and see to know what other enhancements have been made.

  6. Strilo Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 8
    Allthough the CGI in ROTS (and esp. Yoda) looks really realistic, it still isn't cutting edge, IMO.

    You haven't SEEN THE FILM! How on earth can you say this?

  7. That_Wascally_Droid Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 29, 2001
    star 6
    That, and I wouldn't call RotK's SFX or CG entirely groundbreaking or breathtaking. Good, but about equal to AotC's.
  8. CBright7831 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 23, 2004
    star 4
    I think you've got a good point. If you look at the LOTR movies, the first two had CGI done by ILM. For ROTK they used a different company. You'll notice how the CGI is so much bbetter in ROTK. Allthough the CGI in ROTS (and esp. Yoda) looks really realistic, it still isn't cutting edge, IMO.

    Wrong.

    WETA has always done Peter Jackson's films. They are also going to be doing his upcoming film, King Kong.

    http://www.wetadigital.com/
  9. CBright7831 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 23, 2004
    star 4
    That, and I wouldn't call RotK's SFX or CG entirely groundbreaking or breathtaking. Good, but about equal to AotC's.

    Gollum > Any special effect in ATOC including Yoda.
  10. StarWarsFanBoy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 29, 2004
    star 1
    BauconBatista- Great article. worth the read and pretty much hit the nail on the head of what i was thinking.


    There's no doubt that the effects in the PT are at an all time best and puts all other CG to shame. from the beautiful landscapes to the clones at the eating aera looking like real humans.


    But what im trying to establish is the "Awe" effect is no longer there in terms of seeing these new effects on the screen because we feel as if we seen it all before even if we havn't and this in a way took away from the magic of the PT and maybe could be chocked up to the way the flim was percived by those that disliked it.


    I watch ESB and see the Yoda puppet and still to this day find it hard to belive that it isn't a living breathing creature and yet i see the CG one in AOTC and it doesn't read the same in my mind. while yes it's cool and all with the saber battle and the like but i still can't get into the frame of mind that it's a living breathing being like i could with the puppet.

    so this once again brings me back to the point i tried to make with my qustion. are we so used to CG being used in movies that we can no longer see the magic that is once there? and if it is could it have been the reasson behind some people precption of the new PT as bad?
  11. jangoisadrunk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 7, 2005
    star 4
    Gollum had Andy Serkis, who was brilliant. It was a total performance. Yoda was truly animated, rather than painted over a motion captured actor. I think it made a big difference.
  12. Strilo Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 8
    This thread will not turn into a LOTR comparison thread. We have enough of those on the JC.
Moderators: Bazinga'd
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.