PT Why Are The PT Films criticized? (catch-all thread)

Many of the environments in the PT are either models or location shots. Such as
Yoda interacting with cgi troops on Kasheek, they are cgi, the wookies are guys in suits, and the environment is a combination of models and location shots in China.

 

Yeah, but the point is, that there's not a real actor for the CG character to interact with. Wookies are hardly emotive creatures, and CG characters can't emote, as they're not real. Motion capture can approximate human responses, but even then having CG characters interact with each other, IMO has a certain fakeness to it. I really believe you need a human actor to sell the effect, and to prevent it from becoming pure animation, and being percieved as such. Imagine a Yoda puppet interacting with another puppet. It would become The Muppet Show. You really need Mark Hamill to sell the effect. The audience feeds of his reactions to the puppet. I always felt the slimy and gross Jabba puppet was a great effect, but would the puppet have worked, if he was just interacting with other puppets, or people in a Greedo suit, who couldn't show emotions? I very much doubt it. Luke, Leia's, and Han's reaction to the puppet are an integral part of the illusion. The more fake things you put in a shot, the harder it is to maintain this illusion, IMO.

 

Do you have the same problem with the interior Jawa sand crawler scenes in ANH where it is all either people in costumes or R/C prop droids? Basically all fake with no unmasked human characters to interact with? Jawas have no face, just two lights for eyes, some droids are humanoid with blank faces, and totally non humanoid droids like the square box with legs and the dome droid.

 

Whats so selling about Mark Hamil talking to a puppet?






Even back then as amazing as this was, you can tell fake it is because of the 2D characters meshing with live action people. They aren't reacting to anything. Yet, It's a believable act. Animated characters acting with animated characters.

You have to remember, no one cares in the modern day, about "fakeness" with CGI or animation. Star Wars for some reason has this niche notice of the fans but thats something else of an ugly beast.

 

The Jawas are not the most believable characters, no. The droids look and act like droids, so they're fine. However, these scenes only last for about a minute in total, so it hardly makes an impact to the big picture. Also, returning to my previous post, the Sandcrawler is a real object, the droids are real objects, so the only effect, that really needs to be sold for a very short time span, is the interaction between C-3PO and the Jawas, which literally is a single line of dialogue: "Don't shoot!".

 

He's acting to it, like Yoda is real. It's the same with Obi-Wan and Grievous. McGregor had to act to whatever he was looking at, as if it was really there. If he sucked at his job, the illusion of Grievous wouldn't work, no matter how great the CG.

Sorry, but:

Lord of the Rings' Star Critiques 'The Hobbit' Films' Reliance on CGI:

http://screenrant.com/lord-rings-hobbit-viggo-mortensen-criticism-cgi/

Review: 'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies' marches off a CGI cliff:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/12/15/hobbit/e0UkcXAPelzxR2WPPGEwKL/story.html

Why do the LOTR movies look so much better than the new Hobbit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2n2sgx/why_do_the_lotr_movies_look_so_much_better_than/

These are just a few examples of a long list of complaints by both reviewers and fans about, what they percieve to be, the wrong of use of CG in The Hobbit Trilogy. So, Star Wars is no exception. There's enough evidence modern day audiences do care about "fakeness" with CGI or animation.

I like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but that doesn't mean I want, what's supposed to be a live action movie (in this case Star Wars) to look like that (hyperbole alert!).

 

I've missed a few posts, but using (the excellent yellow screen work) of Mary Poppins as a comparison is a bit weak. That's supposed to be silly and fantastical. Star Wars is selling itself as a live action movie. The two are very different. Mary Poppins straddles genre. Unfortunately when you drop in Fake Yoda talking to fake trooper in fake world, it looks like a cartoon. You can quote me as FACT on this one As someone said earlier the best looking prequel is the Phantom menace. Now, someone will no doubt whinge about TFA. Tons of greenscreen work in that, but its getting harder to spot. The bits I didn't like (repeated ad nauseum) were Maz ,Snoke and Plutt. They stuck out. Ok, I think I've nipped that complaint in the bud.

Fake environments are getting hard to spot. I mean, I went to see Dr Strange, and the effects work blew me away. That is one of the best looking movies in years. However, they still haven't nailed a human landing from a jump. Some bits like that were just eye poppingly bad. They've got rotating and ever shifting cities down to a tee.

Grevious the best designed character in years? I guess I'll give that a pass on 'art is subjective' grounds. I am mad though. I think AVA in Ex Machina is infinitely better. HAL 9000 is waaaay better. In my opinion obviously.

A comparison. Maybe this should go in unpopular star wars opinions. I'll use music as an example. Grevious is Alphabeat. HAL is David Bowie. You can like it if you want, but its not going on my Spotify playlist.

(Disclaimer:It's all said in jest, good natured ribbing, of course people can like what they want)

Edit: I was going to use Roger Rabbit in my example. What a great, great feat. Looks fake though...

 

PaulWrightyThen Who said Grievous was the best designed character in years? I also haven't read the entire thread, but if you´re referring to me an my opinion on Grievous design, i never claimed he was the best designed character in years. Maybe someone else posted this and i missed it, but I haven't seen anyone else bring up Grievous design.

And, why i will disagree with you on both AVA, and Hal 9000. Because while Hal 9000 is a good and classic design, it´s also a bit simple in my opinion. Also note that HAL 9000 isn't CGI, i claimed Grievous was one of the best CGI characters ever seen so AVA was a better example than HAL 9000.

And, while AVA looks extremely realistic, i still prefer Grievous, his design is simply a lot more interesting. Not disagreeing that AVA looks more realistic than Grievous, but that her overall design didnt exactly blow me away.

So like you said, it ultimately comes down to personal preferences, please tell me if i mistakenly assumed you were referring to me in your post.

 

I apologise for misquoting. " i claimed Grievous was one of the best CGI characters ever seen". This is much, much more disappointing. I Disagree with you. To the point where my mouth is agape and my breath taken from my body. The Balrog is one that I will mention that just blows Mr Greivous away. In my opinion.

True about HAL. But I simply had to throw him in as a much more interesting complex character and much more sinister. If you are not blown away by AVA then, well, ok. Your comment about the design being too simple? Less is more my friend. Less is more. I find the Monolith more intimidating than ol' Greivous. As a kid I had nightmares about the monolith being at the end of my bed.

My point about Alphabeat stands. No way is that darkening my speakers.

 

Also, how the hell did I end up back in this thread? I already memed out!

 

Yes, HAL 9000 is a great character with his complex and sinister nature, but my point was on the design, and never implied that it being simple was bad. Good example with the Balrog, which is a fantastic CGI character, but Grievous still edges out, because i just simply find him more interesting. And no, that does not mean the Balrog isn't an incredible CGI character.

 

I think we will forever be divided by 'ever'.

 

The Balrog is more impressive in some ways, the smoke animation is certainly impressive, and there's nothing like that kind of particle in any Star Wars.

Grievous is much more physical though, punching objects, picking up Obi-Wan, having the same kind of fight scene as with Jango essentially. The cape physics are quite impressive too.

His face has a lot more detail than the Balrog:



There's a lot of dirt and grit, and the organic eyes too. There's the implication that his body is similar to porcelain, or, more creepily, bone as opposed to just metal.

The Balrog doesn't really have that much detail on the face:


There's not much organic, or many details, beyond the horns looking pretty good.

 

Grievous was a good design. Unfortunately his personality was a disaster. Yes SW is partially inspired by old serials but the format of the OT was to pay homage to them in the story & character archetypes, while crucially giving the characters genuine relatable personaities. In other words they didn't act like cartoons. Even villains like Tarkin & Vader. This balance & combination of factors was key to the appeal. Grievous is a cartoon character in a live-action movie. In every sense of the term. Nowhere better illustrated than when he speaks to himself! He's standing alone after escaping & says out loud "time to abandon ship" followed by an evil cackling laugh. Who was he talking to? This is not a real character. In that moment SW became a Hanna Barbera cartoon. Can anyone imagine this happening in the OT? Well the problem is Lucas says it's all supposed to be one story & one Saga. Grievous' personality is completely out of place.

 

You know who else talks to themselves after doing an 'evil' deed?

Vader in ESB.

"Apology accepted, Captain Needa"

 

Again with the Kashyeek example, the wookie building is a real model, the tree is a real model, the backgrounds are real locations in China, and the wookies are real costumes and much more believable than Jawas.

How about in ROTJ when Leia disguised as a bounty hunter bringing Chewie to Jabba. The whole scene is interactions between a puppet and people in full face covering costumes, two of which lack any facial expressions. Most of the scene is either subtitles or C3PO explaining the plot. Puppet Jabba is the only character in the scene not in s Greedo suit of some kind. There is also the droid dungeon which is all guys in Greedo suits and puppets, very similar to a Jim Henson film.

 

Actually, I personally think the design was terrible for a live action movie, but the execution was pretty good. But yeah, personality. I found his mustache twirling perfectly acceptable TCW, but found it a too broad in ROTS. Also, I HATED that they brought in the character with virtually no introduction or background (other than the micro-series). He plays out as being very much a distraction to get Obi-Wan off of Coruscant. Thjough I actually enjoy the Kenobi scenes on Utupau.... well the fight/chase scene does go on for too long, but other than that....

 

Oke, we're going down this road. I never said having a human interaction is the only thing, that determines whether the effect works, but it helps (a lot).

Since you brought up the scene, let's make a comparison shall we. Here's the Leia sequence:



Here's the Yoda on Kashyyyk sequence:



Can you spot the difference? It's pretty obvious to me. The first frame looks like a photo to me with real objects in it, the second one doesn't. Yoda looks oke, but the trooper in the bottom frame looks incredibly fake to me. Despite as you say the wookie building is a real model, the tree is a real model, the backgrounds are real locations in China, and the wookies are real costumes, it doesn't look photorealistic, because of the digital processing. All the texture has been digitally scraped away. Just look at the difference between texture of the Wookie hair in the first and second frame. Chewbacca looks animated in the second frame. The real live footage has been processed to better fit with the CG, giving the entire frame an animated look. What's the point of using real sets, models, props, if they all end up looking like a CG creation in the end?

 

The senate would decide on what to do?
Was she supposed to present a motion or just tell the senate what happened?
I think you don't understand what a motion is in politics or in law.

Padme telling the senate that Naboo had been attacked is just relaying information.
Padme urging the senate to take some specific action, that is a motion.

This is no motion, this is just her telling the senate what happened, it is her accusing the TF of wrongdoing. She never got to the point of what should be done because the TF stopped her.

Take what Palpatine said just before this;

Allegations;

So Palpatine says that Padme is here to accuse the TF of wrongdoing, but he doesn't mention anything about a course of action.
If all she had to do was just tell the senate this and then the senate would debate on what to do, then Padme has no motion. The senate has to come up with the motion and then vote on it.

THIS is a motion!
Padme suggest a course of action to the senate.

You miss the point.
Palpatine's original plan was NOT to have Padme escape or for her to call for a vote against Valorum. That is something that Palpatine had to work quickly to make happen when Padme turned up.
The invasion seems to have been planned, they moved it up because Valorum had involved the Jedi.
So the TF would take control, make Padme sign some treaty and this would be presented to the senate. What would happen after that is unclear. That Palpatine wanted to become chancellor is clear and this would obviously aid in this but how we don't know.
Maybe other senators would call for this vote after they saw what the TF did and that Valorum did nothing to stop it. Or Valorum's term was ending soon and Palpatine could play the sympathy card in getting elected. We don't know.
So no, I didn't suggest that the TF call for this vote if the invasion had gone as planned.
I don't know if Palpatine had planned for such a vote originally.

Chalk that up to more contrived writing and the senate doing anything Palpatine tells it to.
And you haven't shown anything in TPM that supports your argument that the Jedi are viewed as shady or untrustworthy.

And a very simple way to overcome it would be to have the Jedi appear to confirm what Padme says.
So then either Padme could suggest it when talking to Palpatine or Valorum could have them at the ready in case this does turn up. This satisfies the demand and they can move on.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying.
1) The senate should be briefed, by Padme or the Jedi, and a motion put forth.
2) THEN if there is a matter of verifying this by sending a commission, either the rule is absolute and no vote can happen before such a commission is sent, then the vote must obviously be delayed.
3) If not then the senate can vote on the matter at hand after the TF have been given the chance to respond.

This is not difficult.

Also, you argue that Valorum just has to get the senate to vote. But above you say that the senate has to decide on what to do. So if Padme was never supposed to present a motion, only to accuse the TF. Then the senate would have to debate on what to do and finally agreeing on a motion.
Then Valorum CAN'T call for any vote because there is nothing to vote on yet.

You are not one to talk about absurdity since you think that in the middle of a war zone is perfectly safe for a nine year old.
The torpedoes in the fighter were quite powerful. Had Anakin fired them off while in the hangar on Naboo I think that might have been bad.

So you defend contrived writing by saying "it turned out well." Sorry that doesn't make it any less contrived. The characters in the story doesn't know this and if they act only to make sure this does happen, then that is very much contrived writing.
And invoking "Will of God" to justify how characters act also doesn't excuse contrived writing.
Had Qui-Gon been questioned about Anakin being there and he had given this type of response "The Force will protect him." Then that would have been a reason. Not a very good one but a reason.
But as I said, we get nothing.
No one comments on it.

Really? So a soldier who also is a father and responsible for his children. If he is sent of to war he should take his children to the battlefield because of this? Wow, talk about absurd.
And Qui-Gon DID let Anakin out of his sight, he told him to stay in the cockpit while he was leaving and then Maul turned up. And Qui-Gon did plan to have Anakin hide in a safe place. So leave him on Coruscant or the Gungan safe place.
Just what did Qui-Gon expect to happen if Anakin stayed there?
No, the plot needs Anakin to come along and so he does, sense and logic be damned.

Also, you are wrong, the blockade was GONE, only one ship remained. Approaching from a different side of the planet? Not only do we see that the ships are gone but if the blockade was only on one side of the planet then it would have been a very useless blockade. We see the blockade at the start of the film and the ships were in a rough ring formation around the planet.

I am not the one who is trying to make slavery seem like a not so bad thing here.

[/QUOTE]

Qui-Gon tried to free both Anakin and Shmi because he understood that Anakin would feel better with his mother not being a slave. If the rest of the Jedi don't understand such a basic thing then they are terribly clueless. Not to mention coldhearted and uncaring.

As for Padme, she is the ruler of a whole planet, in fact she owes her planets freedom to Anakin and to Shmi. So Shmi is not some random nobody that Padme has never met. She knows her, Shmi opened her house to Padme when she needed help. But once Padme is back as queen then there is not a **** to be given about Shmi.

Padme cared about Anakin, that is made clear in the film. It was also made clear that Shmi still being a slave worried Anakin. So it would not only be very easy for Padme to help her, it would also be kind, caring and compassionate for Padme to do this. And the film is trying to establish her as this type of character. A good person with a moral code. Having her suddenly not care about Shmi runs totally counter to that.

As for me being as bad as Padme, first of, why are trying to make this personal?
Second, if a friend of mine told he that his mother was starving to death and asked for some help, then I would try to help.
Third, as I said above, are we, the audience supposed to like Padme and think she is a decent person or are we supposed to view her as cold and uncaring?
I think the former but her action or lack of action with Shmi is out of character.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Some of it seems to be lighting, Jabba's palace cheats a bit with being indoors with dim lighting and smoke to hide the fakeness of the puppets and costumes. A major downside to costumes is they have to be pretty humanoid and especially in 80s films they lack mobility while cgi characters can be far less humanoid and have unlimited mobility, like the flying Geo warriors which would be impossible to pull off without cgi. In Never Ending Story, the puppets are impressive but they are static, they just sit around like fixtures rather than move around the environment. Jabba in ROTJ clearly suffered from lack of mobility, as at times he felt more like a fixture than a creature, with his cgi versions at least they moved around and interacted with the environment better.

Going back to the Leia shot, the real costumes do not make the scene any more real to me. The guys in the background look like rubber suits and the fact they are real suits does not make the scene look more real to me.

The Kashyyyk scene doesn't lack detail or texture to me. I don't see where anything has been scraped away. Cgi is the only way Yoda could work in that shot. In fact it was ILM that suggested to Lucas to make Yoda all cgi in AOTC and ROTS. I can tell Chewie is a real suit there, it all looks realistic enough to me. The only differences I see between the two scenes is that Kashyyyk is brighter and cleaner than the dim and smokey Leia scene, but that is likely due to artistic choices for each scene's atmosphere. It seems to me you are not disliking the cgi so much as Lucas artistic choices in regarding to lighting, framing, etc. in the pt.

I also disagree with you that cgi characters cannot emote, Jar Jar alone disproves that IMO. But you did bring up a clear limitation of the OT with its fewer scenes of non human character interaction as opposed to the PT which features more of it.

What do you think of the droid dungeon scene?

 

ROTJ began Lucas' slide toward... let's just say less successful endeavors. But in 1983, the Jabba's palace scene was a huge accomplishment. I STILL prefer the giant puppet version of Jabba, and I definitely preferred the puppet band to the CGI version. The Rancor does look pretty fake by modern standards, but for its time, it was also pretty damned impressive.

I certainly think digital characters have their place. But it must be done carefully. I personally think Gollum was the first really successful fully digital character to feature in a film. I think Jar-Jar was failure in both design and execution, but Yoda... call me crazy, but Yoda is MOSTLY a success in the PT IMO. There is some weakness in him. He still has that CGI glow that is common in the PT, but I think he mostly works. Maybe it's just 'cause I really like Yoda? I dunno. I could list more complaints, but I don;t think there's really a need.... we've gone over this a million times. I will say this.... I think ILM accomplished some remarkable things in the PT. But I think they were pushed beyond their limits at times too. I admit the CGI troopers were one sore point to me, and YES, I noticed them the first time. They were better in the ROTS, but again, they have this sort of artificial feel I cannot shake. The textures LOOK like textures. But I don't want to overplay that. The effects shot that did not work as well for me are NOT my main complaints about the films.

 

Nope, he says that to Needa as he takes his dying breath. It's also directed at the other Imperials witnessing the event. The message being "if you screw up an apology won't cut it!". Most importantly Vader doesn't follow his remark with a silly evil laugh to himself. If he had it would've been a cartoon version of Vader.
So your comparison doesn't work at all. Nice try though.

 

What do you have against people laughing to themselves Downunder. Its a fact that Grievous does not have that many friends that aren't droids, and you say he´s not even allowed to laugh at his own remarks.

In all seriousness, Grievous laughing to himself is far from a problem, for me it just adds to his sadistic personality when he laughs over removing the only way for his enemies to escape, and its not exactly the silliest thing villains in star wars has done.

Also, Needa was dead when Vader made his comment, or should i somehow interpret Needa laying completely still and emotionless on the floor as him taking his final breath? I won't dispute your other points, but i don't see how he´s not dead when Vader makes his remark

 

Well he's saying it to Needa (whether he's dead or dying) & in front of other Imperials. So it's no comparison. The equivalent scene would be Vader alone in his fighter at the end of ANH. The Death Star has just blown up. He straightens his spinning ship & says out loud "Missed me! Mwuhahahaha!". Perhaps an amusing scene for a kid's cartoon. It's not SW though.

 

Yeah, thats true, imperial officers are there to witness the scene from a distance, so i agree with your point there.

Though i did rewatch Grievous abandon ship scene, and don't really have a problem with Grievous laugh, and why i don't have a problem with it is because its not particularly over the top. If it were i might have had a problem with it. Nevertheless, agree to disagree and all that.