PT Did the PT use too much CGI?

Vader's pause in the Echo corridor always made sense to me. His troopers investigated a room or hallway, found it empty, then they went off in a different direction.

 

I still think the battle over Coruscant is the best space battle scene I have seen in a film. It is so rich, complex, and deeply detailed. Even the chaos adds realism as being in the middle of a huge battle can be quite chaotic.

 

It's not that using CGI is bad, but there were definitely some noticeable moments where I thought it was a bit ridiculous. I get it, Lucas wanted to explore these new technologies, but similar to the Force, there needs to be a balance between realism and computer generated imagery. I am hoping the sequel trilogy knows where to use CGI and where it is not entirely necessary.

 

And that is a perfect answer my friend

 

This is the proof that a lot of people complaining about "too much CGI" are still living in the past.

We are in the 21st century. Nowadays, in the years 2010's computers are being surpassed by smart phones and electronic tablets, and people are still saying that George Lucas was too ahead of time, even today? I bet that those same people who are complaining for more that 10 years about "too much CGI" aren't using today computers, smart phones and tablets, since "everything that is new" is bad and too ahead of its time and are living in a 1970's or 1980's life style.

 

Exactly. Since everything that is older is automatically better let's go back to Dialup internet that was so much fun also bring back VHS forget blu ray. Let's get back those basic flip phones. Lol like I said before it seems everyone embraces new technology except for when it comes to filmmaking. Some just want film technology to be stuck in the 70's

 

What does ridiculous mean to you though? Plenty of fans obviously found it ridiculous in ROTJ to have the Ewoks and all those puppets at Jabba's palace.

What was it really to them? That it was done at all or the way it was done?

I never understand what "noticing" means. I noticed that they used lots of people in suits and lots of puppets.

Except that in terms of realism there is no contest. As great as you can make a puppet it's still a puppet. It can't do all the movements of a live creature or have the textures in living skin. CGI can do that. Of course you know it's CGI but that doesn't change the realism factor of the CGI being superior to the puppet.

 

Paul Scanlon: Which bring us to the Ewoks. Where do they come from?

George Lucas: The idea was just a short Wookie. In the original film, the giant end battle was the crux of the whole movie: a sort of primitive society overcoming this huge technological society. In the early versions of the script, those primitives were Wookies. Since I couldn't do that battle, I took one Wookie, and he ended up being Chewbacca, who became a more technological person. So in this one I said, ''I can't make them Wookies, so I'll make them short Wookies and give them short hair and give them a different society and make them really primitive, the way it's intended.''

Scanlon: There's one major difference, though. They're lovable small creatures, and you haven't done that before. Jawas are small, but they aren't lovable.

Lucas: Well, they evolved and started getting cute. [Smiles] Dare to be cute. The worst we could do is get criticized for it.

Scanlon: I think you may.

Lucas: I'm sure we will. A lot of people are going to be offended by Ewoks. A lot of people say the films are just an excuse for merchandising: ''Lucas just decided to cash in on the teddy bear.'' Well, it's not a great thing to cash in on, because there are lots of teddy bears marketed, so you don't have anything that's unique. If I were designing something original as a market item, I could probably do a lot better.

Scanlon: But you are marketing Ewoks anyway.

Lucas: Oh, yeah, we market everything in the movie. That's what keeps funding the other things we do – the computer research and all the other things. Again, people tend to look at merchandising as an evil thing. But ultimately, a lot of fun things come out of it, and at the same time, it pays for the overhead of the company and everybody's salary.

--Rolling Stone Interview, 1983.

So even then, Lucas knew he was going to be raked over the coals. And the reviews did prove him right about both.

 

I loved every bit about ROTJ when I saw it opening weekend at the age of 10. I loved every bit.

The Ewoks bug me a bit now but that's because I'm a grouchy 42 year old.

 

Nostalgia plays a big factor in the CGI hate.

I've seen people who think that older technology is superior to newer technology because of how inconvenient they were. Lol A lot of people hate on all new tech with no exceptions.

 

Lol Well I guess the hate on new tech can't be too bad I mean you wont find any VCR or VHS tapes at your local Best Buy anymore. So more people are embracing new tech than old.

 

Except for the people who still buy vinyl records despite that CD's and digital streaming/downloading services have been around for years. And there are people who still go out to buy VHS and replacement VCR's, because they prefer the old analogue look to digital.

 

I agree - I think it's about balance and using what works best for the film. I'm sure the cgi will bew fabulous, but so will the sets, the puppets and all the rest.

(I also think the same about old technology and new technology - there is a place for both. For example - I own and use digital books and comics - however I also have a pretty big library of printed books and comics - I think both have their place. The digital stuff is exceptionally convenient and even with a big long story, I can't knock myself unconscious by falling asleep while reading because when I drop the 'book' on my face it's just a KOBO, not a 900 page hardback. That said - the smell and feel of books and comics is something I find exceptionally beautiful (not in nostalgic terms, but in sensory terms). I love the feel, smell and sound of the pages, the browsing on the shelves, and the way I can still read when the power is out, whether or not I remembered to charge some gadget - I never have to recharge my paperbacks (& I never suddenly lose them all because I cleared out my coookies and can't now remember how to log in to DarkHorse with a outdated email address).

 

I think its less about the CGI and more about the overall art direction/cinematography. Everything just looks so stale and... dull in my opinion.

 

Yeah, this was the only CGI in the prequels that truly looked awful to me.

 

I dont have an issue with cgi or physical props. Its all fake. GL took a bunch oh fake things to tell a great story.Lets also do away with the term PRACTICAL, it a physical property they are referring to. The opposite of practical is impractical so impractical equals cgi? That doesn't make any sense to refer to physical props as PRACTICAL unless we refer to to CGI as impractical. Again its all fake. They have used many film tricks to make the complete saga. From the visuals to the sound. CGI was in the first movie and the 6th one. The issues people have with Cgi are personal. One is not better than the other, it all depends on how the creators use the technology and craftsmanship. Which is what it boils down to physical craftsmanship versus computer art. You can put two artist in the same space tell them both to recreate a visual in front of them one artist has a PC and some art applications the other has a canvas with various paints and various brushes. When both are completed the two pieces of artwork wont look the same, even though they are of the exact same image. You could bring in 2 more artist to do the exact thing that was done with the first 2 artist, one with paints the other with a computer program and you would now have 4 different images, all of the exact same reference. The problem is not the CGI art its the artist. Many OT fans dont respect or appreciation the many artist that helped create the PT. They dont value their work, so they find ways to discredit it. By saying one way of creating art is more superior to the other way. Its all a bunch of nonsense.

 

I see nothing wrong with this shot.

 

The background doesn't look believable. The lighting is too soft, the textures don't look quite right, and the whole package adds up to it looking more fake than any other shot in the prequels.

 

I

I enjoy all of these shots, especially the last one.

 

Me too. I think they look great. I guess it comes down to personal taste.

 

I absolutely love the CGI utilized in the PT. No question about it. But I also love all the other effects used in the saga. All this "practical effects great and CGI suxx" Is nothing but hipster mentality at its worst.

I have been a DJ for over 20 years and I started out on vinyl. For years in the DJ world I had to hear all the vinyl is better than CD arguments. The "only REAL DJ's use vinyl" and junk like that. Sounds kind of familiar don't it? But as far as for me, I utilize vinyl and CD when DJ'ing. Best of both worlds.

With the whole anti-CGI crowd running rampant and blabbering about practical effects, only makes me worry about how this will spill over into other films as well? The new Mad Max is a good sign along with the new SW film that all this practical effects will become what everyone will start wanting or even expecting in other films in the future. So no more pushing the envelope for effects in movies? Even though film makers will utilize new techniques, but most of the anti-CGI crowd won't know the difference anyway. But rest assured, if there is a lot of CGI in TFA, you could bet your ass that the anti-CGI crowd will forgive it and make their excuses such as, "this is CGI done right!". Or whatever excuse anyone could think of, they will be using it to justify the use of CGI in a movie that is being marketed as a practical effects extravaganza.

In closing, I personally love CGI. I think it looks great. And I have no problem with how it was utilized in the PT. Along with all the other effects were as well.

 

I've stated it before but this whole CGI debate is ridiculously blown out of proportion.

 

I don't think people are anti-cg, rather they are pro "make a good looking movie." People disagree as to whether that was always accomplished in the prequels. It's not really more complicated than that.

 

I've stated it before but this whole practical effects pandering is ridiculously blown out of proportion.

See how this works?

 

Just because someone doesn't like a 'perceived' manner of approach it doesn't equal pandering and this whole argument is silly.