Why do people say AOTC had LOTS of bad CGI?!

Those who say AOTC had lots of bad CG
got to be crazy!
There were only two to three shots that weren´t that well executed but the rest was superb!

Is there any CGI smart-@$$ that could list all those bad shots here?

Here are the only ones I can think of:
1) Anakin ballancing / riding the Shaak
2) C-3PO getting "scrapped" in that Droid
Factory on Geonosis.
3)Forgot number three. Maybe Anakin jumping onto the gondula after the arena
fight debutes.

Three bad effects again 2000 (? ) outstanding effects?
Too bad the film society HATES Lucas.

Go George!

YJ edit: This has gone far enough off topic.

 

Why do people say AOTC had LOTS of bad CGI?!

Because it is their opinion, that is why.



Rick McCallum loves you! (That's his opinion.)

 

I never said the CGI in 'Clones was bad. In fact...its visually stunning. Just needed to cut back on it, a little.

Yes, I am a Pro-Puppet Yoda partisan.

 

Because people know that its CG, and therefore complain to sound observant.

The only problems I had was with Anakin riding the Shaak (which should not have been done in the first place), C3PO's digital stunt double (his arms have too many joints), and Jango's digital stunt double (his helmet reflects too much instead of being a simple black).

Cometgreen

 

Actually, I never really noticed Jango's stunt double. I was more concerned with the floating pear. Yeesh.

But generally, it was unbelievable. I think AOTC was the first case of real actors (sometimes ) frequently in totally CGI environments and looking flawless.

Of course, contrast that with the reaction to Reloaded's "fantastic" and "unbelievable" effects, despite quite a few shots of Neo looking seriously wrong.

*sigh* Society...

 

once again, for my response, see GrandMoffTarkin

 

Some people just exaggerate to make a point.

 

This is my problem. If I notice it is CGI I start going "Oooooh, nice CGI" and I get pulled out of the movie. The purpose of VFX is that they are supposed to be invisible. Never once have I looked at a OT starship and gone "Ooooh, nice model!" That's my problem with CGI. Sure, it looks great, but you know it is CGI. The CGI shots I liked are the ones I didn't notice that they were CGI, those to me are the well done ones.

 

"Never once have I looked at a OT starship and gone 'Ooooh, nice model!'"


I do just the opposite: "Eeeeeh, poor-looking model/matte painting."

 

I grant you the bad matte paintings, some are horrible.

In my head I was referring to starship models, but the truth is that you're right, some of the models of the OT are horrible, like the long shot taun-taun. But at least they aren't overused.

 

I actually don't mind the Taun-Tauns too much, but the ships from ANH....


And I agree, they aren't overused at all. Puppets come pretty close, but they can't be faulted for that. It's the best technique they had at the same for making semi-believable aliens.

 

That one elephant-like creature at Jabba's palace is pretty hilarious

 

When I was told the clonetroopers were CGI I thought it was a lie. (hey, that rhymes)

 

Bad CGI in Attack of the Clones? I think not, but some people like to whine and moan.

 

There was some bad CGI, but the vast majority of it was done extremely well.

 

You can't get much better than ILM. Those boys are the pros and they have the best toys. If you think about how much CG there is in AOTC and the pace they moved at getting those thousands of digital shots in, I think they deserve a little more credit than some people give them.

 

Well, one problem Spike, was that a lot of it had to be CGI. You think anyone left the theater thinking "Hmm, I wonder where they shot those Coruscant scenes"? A lot of the time, you know it's CGI or models, because there's no other way.

But I agree with you that the impreciptle ones are the best. That's why I always remind people about the stunt doubles. I never knew they were digital until the DVD came out.

Ohh, right, I forgot the pear. I had no real trouble with it until Padme ate it. That was just done horribly. They should have cut it when she grabbed onto the pear.

Cometgreen

 

I would say the worst CGI of AOTC was probably the droid factory. Not one shot looked real. The compositing was horrible. Basically it looked like a cutscene in a video game.

Anakin riding the Shaak was atrocious.

Tell me why the wide shot of the Brontosauri and the final shot of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park 1 look 10 times better than the Nexu, reek and Acklay?

I know many of the shots are impossible to do of the clonetroopers, but when it is just a few of them, what looks more real? A man wearing a clonetrooper costume or a CGI clonetrooper?

CGI buildings, water, landscaping, ships etc look great. But when it comes to living breathing characters, CGI still has a long way to go. The movement's just aren't right. It's way too fluid, and it seems like the animators add way too many movements to something simple like turning a head. That and it still looks rubbery.

I ask again. In a close up of Yoda talking with no action, what looks more real? A puppet of Yoda or a CGI creation of Yoda trying to mimic the puppet?

Of course none of this rant applies to Jurassic Park. In terms of CGI, ILM did something special there. I'm still not sure how and why CGI made 10 years ago still is the best. ILM should hire Phil Tippet back.

/end rant

 

"In a close up of Yoda talking with no action, what looks more real? A puppet of Yoda or a CGI creation of Yoda trying to mimic the puppet?"


The puppet looks more real, but CGI looks more natural. More realistic. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have something that looks "alive" and that I have to suspend my disbelief only slightly, rather than something that looks like it's actually in front of the camera, but requires quite an imagination to believe that it's a real-life character.

 

Why do people say AOTC had LOTS of bad CGI?!

Because some people will say anything, no matter how absurd, just to get in a cheap jab at Star Wars. I know, it's pathetic.

 

Of course, contrast that with the reaction to Reloaded's "fantastic" and "unbelievable" effects, despite quite a few shots of Neo looking seriously wrong.

Double standard? What double standard?

 

Never once have I looked at a OT starship and gone "Ooooh, nice model!"

Interestingly enough, while watching ESB with one of my friends years ago, he scoffed at how fake the Star Destroyer looked in the opening shot.

Pre-1995 complaint: "That looks like a model!"

Post-1995 complaint: "That looks like CGI!"

The more things change the more they stay the same.

And sorry about the three posts in a row, but I'm too lazy to go back and add on to the first one.

 

"That one elephant-like creature at Jabba's palace is pretty hilarious "

LOL! THAT is the SADDEST star wars creature in all the movies! Looked like a big stuffed toy!

THE PEAR! My god, the PEAR! He cuts it...ok...it floats....ok.....she stabs it...and it goes downhill from there. First of all, her forks goes right into it like it was butter, then when she bites it, her teeth must be razor sharp, because a piece just comes right off and sort of hovers over her tongue into her mouth. Terrible.

 

"LOL! THAT is the SADDEST star wars creature in all the movies! Looked like a big stuffed toy!"


I'd take him over that sparkly-eyed alien with the triangular-shaped head in the cantina in ANH.

 

to me, the 3 worst looking moments in the movie are anakin ridind the shaak, c3po falling down into the factory , and the republic assault ships taking off coruscant at the end.

i wonder why they actually decide to include a scene that obviously looks fake in the movie. i ean, in many cases, it's not like they have to...