PT Did the PT use too much CGI?

I have never had an issue with the Temuera Morrison effect. It looks fine, particularly in motion, and I never once got the floating head effect that I got with Ryan Reynolds's Green Lantern.

 

The first thing I do when I look at a CG effect is look at the edges, because moving or not, if it hasn't been inserted into the frame properly with the right referencing, it's not going to look good to me. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb, like the Reynold Green Lantern.

 

I know others have mentioned this, but I actually love the painterly, slightly surreal aspect to the CGI, especially in AoTC. It isn't always completely photorealistic, but honestly I'm not that concerned. It achieves a unique look and thus a unique texture and atmosphere, slightly opaque and even redolent of mystery, which for AoTC is very appropriate, I think.

 

I'm pretty sure that the lightsabers cost less and don't take much time to make compared to making multiple CT armour.

 

No idea. I love CGI, I think it looks way more realistic than practical effects. For instance, it took me years to figure out all of the Clone armor was computer-generated. Plus it allows for much more creative freedom.

 

I didn't know it was all CGI until a few years ago either.

 

Not a damn thing is wrong with using too much CGI. That is by far one of the lame complaints against the OT I can't stand. First off this is the 21 century films should look better than films released 30 years ago. CGI when done really well looks AMAZING. I believe the PT's CGI looks stunning and Lucas used just enough to really visualize the story.

 

It's LucasFilm, costs shouldn't really be much of a hindrance to them.

 

LFL still had to work within a budget on all its films. Even the PT. They didn't just throw money around because they had it.

 

Probably because A) many of the effects do not hold the test of time and display the flaws associated with CGI of the early 2000s and B) poor rendering/set composition created an awkward dynamic between actors and background.

PS: your poll question doesn't make sense.

 

I disagree personally I find that Practical Effects don't age well. For example while I do love the OT some of the effects are almost cringe inducing to watch now. Also they are extremely fake looking. CGI when done well always looks much better than Practical.

 

Kamino does have a lot of CGI work, though. And the Kamino people.

That may be what they're referring to. They stick out like horrible white-reflective sore thumbs.

 

Hey, that's your opinion!

I find the OT as an overall stands the test of time better, but there are of course moments of good and bad in both. The thing about the PT is that is really, really saturated with computer effects work - no I'm not claiming IT'S ALL CGI!! or anything like that, but one of the things Lucas tried to do was to create a super busy frame filled with action and objects and a lot of the time it doesn't work IMO.

I do find that, in general, the practical effects have a longer shelf life than the CGI of the late 90s/early 2000s visible in the prequels. Take Yoda as an example between the two trilogies.

Discussions about practical vs. CGI have changed significantly today though because of how standards have improved so drastically since the prequels. Take the Kaminoans, a hideous piece of CGI work. I'm sure that would look photo-realistic if attempted today and it would have achieved Lucas' vision better than any practical costume could have done.

 

I have no issues whatsoever with CGI. When it's used well it's brilliant, almost invisible.

The CGI in the prequels is some I consider to be some of the finest ever created.

 

I've never really been bothered by the amount of CGI in the prequels. It was the medium Lucas used to tell his story. The execution of it left me scratching my head sometimes, but hey, let him live.

Films since pretty much the dawn of film have been using effects to compliment the tales being told. My big problem has been the tale that was told. Just didn't do it for me.

 

When you're the guy writing, producing, directing, AND you own the company that sets the budget for it all, you can kinda make your own budget. I sincerely doubt 10 extras and some plastic armor would break the bank for LFL.

 

Indeed. For TESB and ROTJ, Lucas had money, but a lot of it had to go back into ILM and LFL, as well as Skywalker Sound and THX in order to make those two films. That's why Lucas had to get rid of Kurtz and hire Kazanjian to keep the films on budget. That's why he relied on merchandising sales to help recoup costs and keep things running. When Lucas made TPM, he was able to get $125 million together, but he also said that if that film did very poorly, he wasn't going to waste his time and money trying to do the other two. McCallum was hired for the fact that he could keep the budget on track and not go over it, which he managed to do for all three PT films. Even coming in under budget. Lucas also told everything that he wanted to make the films with fewer and fewer dollars being spent, but maintaining the same quality.

Lucasfilm and all the holdings are worth a lot of money, and Lucas himself had money, but he also invested the money back on the companies. That's why he never had to declare bankruptcy and he made sure that the company came first and not his desire to spend more than necessary. He had to be smart on what he wanted. If it went beyond what he was going to spend, then he was going to cut stuff.

 

The visual effects are perfectly fine in all six films.

 

Indeed. For TESB and ROTJ, Lucas had money, but a lot of it had to go back into ILM and LFL, as well as Skywalker Sound and THX in order to make those two films. That's why Lucas had to get rid of Kurtz and hire Kazanjian to keep the films on budget. That's why he relied on merchandising sales to help recoup costs and keep things running. When Lucas made TPM, he was able to get $125 million together, but he also said that if that film did very poorly, he wasn't going to waste his time and money trying to do the other two. McCallum was hired for the fact that he could keep the budget on track and not go over it, which he managed to do for all three PT films. Even coming in under budget. Lucas also told everything that he wanted to make the films with fewer and fewer dollars being spent, but maintaining the same quality.

Lucasfilm and all the holdings are worth a lot of money, and Lucas himself had money, but he also invested the money back on the companies. That's why he never had to declare bankruptcy and he made sure that the company came first and not his desire to spend more than necessary. He had to be smart on what he wanted. If it went beyond what he was going to spend, then he was going to cut stuff.[/quote]

Well said.

Some people don't see to understand the realities of movie-making business and how bloody expensive it all it.

Just because Star Wars was always a success does not guarantee it always will be.

Lucas and Lucasfilm are not Disney or any huge company.

Costs are not a "hindrance" because they were able to keep them under control.

There is a reason why Kurtz was fired from TESB and really didn't finish the job on ANH either. Lucas didn't blame him for ANH's problems because no one but he really knew what was going on and even he had troubles.

On TESB the excuses ran out. I think Lucas made one of the big mistakes of his career thinking that Kershner and Kurtz could do the live action shooting without him there every single day to help them out.

It certainly wasn't fair to Kershner to stick him with Kurtz who showed he couldn't handle it already. He didn't make the same mistake on ROTJ.

Now since it all worked out he didn't hold any long term recriminations and allowed Kurtz to take all kinds of undue credit over the years as was his right to hand out to people he liked and bared no ill will to.

 

Must say, I was never too impressed with the look of Jurassic Park. I also think it's a bit of a myth that it's aged perfectly. Sacrilege to say tho because it's seemingly everyone's favourite movie!

 

It is matter of opinion and personal preference. I will always prefer a well done CGI shot over Practical. I find the CGI in the PT look amazing. The effects in the OT IMO at least haven't aged well.

Also I think Jurassic Park is one exemption the practical effects in that film have aged well. The T Rex still looks amazing years later.

 

Yes. Special effects are part of SW, then it is normal that each new movie is a next step for this art, CGI or not CGI.

 

Digital art is just as difficult as traditional. It's just a different medium. I sell my art prints at comic cons around the country. The best way to describe my art is digital. Do I still sketch and draw? Yes. I even used to oil paint. Now I combine everything into the computer and use digital effects and digitally paint to create my pieces. Is it harder or easier? No. It's just as time consuming and takes patience and skill.

With that said, I do believe there was too much CGI used in the prequels. A nice mix would have been welcome.

 

I know slightly off topic but does anyone think the effects in the first Jurassic Park film hold up much more than the OT???

 

It depends on the scene in question. Some shots in Jurassic Park have aged amazingly well; the T. rex attack in the rain looks outstanding. On the other hand, a lot of shots look terrible, like the brachiosaurs the characters see upon entering the park.