Why the PT will never be as good as the OT

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I mean by "real." I'm not talking real as in looking like something real. I mean real, as in they were real and more concrete. For instance, look at Dexter. The effects were great there, but you could tell it was CGI and Obi-Wan was reacting to something that really wasn't there. In the OT, Yoda is really there, whether he's a puppet or not.

 

That doesn't seem to be happening with the PT. TPM and AOTC seem to be just another couple of blockbuster movies and not the cultural touchstone that the OT was.

I agree 100%.

 

Personally I think they should use CGI only for enviroments, very large crowds, and space scenes, along with lightsabers and lasers. The rest should be costume and real. Yoda fighting is fine, because that's just not possible with puppets. They should have done it like in the special editions, CGI mixed with real things. But over all AOTC was still great in effects.

 

You want to know the *real* reason why the OT will always seem better than the PT? Because most of us saw the OT as kids, either at the theatre, or like me on TV. And Star Wars movies are just soooo overwhelming for kids. And here we are now, several years later, going to see a new Star Wars movie, and we're expecting to once again see it through the eyes of a 9-year-old, but guess what? We're not 9 anymore. So essentially, we feel bad not because the movie was bad, but because we somehow expected it to miraculously recapture our childhood. But truth is that the PT movies do have the SW atmosphere, and personlly they gave me goosebumps. And guess what, after AoTC I did feel some of that old childhood magic come back (Mom, I want to go agaaaaaaaiiiin)

This psycho-babble was brought to you by
Kay-Elle

 

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I mean by "real." I'm not talking real as in looking like something real. I mean real, as in they were real and more concrete. For instance, look at Dexter. The effects were great there, but you could tell it was CGI and Obi-Wan was reacting to something that really wasn't there. In the OT, Yoda is really there, whether he's a puppet or not.

Was the Rancor really there? Were the Imp. walkers really there? You can only really say that for Yoda and a couple of background creatures.

 

Was the Rancor realy there? Were the Imp. walkers realy there? You can only realy say that for Yoda and a couple of background creatures.

Yes they were really there. They were real objects.

 

The textures of the Cgi effects are the best you can get. THe clone troopers, are always cg, yet the look real, what with the shine of the armor, and the textures.


The metal of the At-Te looks great. The Kamino skin looks real. You can even see the moisteness of the rubbery skin on the one's face in a close up. Yoda, why do a puppet? If you love Yoda sooo much, why not go cg and expand the charector.

I like the prequal trilogy because of the complexity, and politics.

I like the PT more. That, and the fact that I'm only fourteen probably means that I dont' feel the same as you older people about the old movies.

 

I mean, hey, the hologram of Palpatine in ESB is done so poorly, it doesn't even LOOK like Ian McDiarmid

 

Yes they were really there. They were real objects.

No, what you said was that you liked the fact that Yoda was a puppet because he was really there and Luke was actualy reacting to him, my point is that the rancor and the walkers werent realy there and it was exactly the same as the CG shots such as Dex and Obi-Wan, its all done with blue screen.

 

Okay...for those of you who still don't understand what I mean by "real":

You can tell when something is CGI, whether you like to admit it or not. You can tell it is COMPUTER GENERATED. You can see it in the way things move and their textures. You can tell that most of the PT is CGI no matter how close to real they can make it look. (except for landscape)
Puppets and models are real. Even if it is stop motion, it still has a "real" look to it, even if it doesn't move right. Puppets have both "real" texture and "real" motion.

Do you understand now?

 

<<Even if it is stop motion, it still has a "real" look to it, even if it doesn't move right.>>

"I'm so confused."

Well, I could tell that Yoda was a puppet. What's your point?

 

Was the Rancor realy there? Were the Imp. walkers realy there? You can only realy say that for Yoda and a couple of background creatures.

Yes they were really there. They were real objects.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? Mark Hamill wasn't fighting a guy in a Rancor puppet for ROTJ. Lucas didn't build life-size AT-AT's for ESB. How did he do it? With blue screen. The real Ransor and AT-AT's were miniatures. An effect like CGI.

Also, the Battle of Hoth can't touch the one on Geonosis. SFX wise. Look at the original ESB video and the effects on some of those shots were laughable.

As for the story, the PT HAS to be more complicated than the OT in order to set up the simple good vs. evil storyline in the OT.

And obviously the PT isn't going to have as deep a cultural impact as the OT because the OT came first. Simple as that.

 

I give up. Forget the whole CGI thing. I wish I could go back and edit it out. This thread has got so off track. Anyways, what about the rest of the points I made?

 

You can tell when something is CGI, whether you like to admit it or not. You can tell it is COMPUTER GENERATED.

Again you have better eyesight than me, because I can't tell. For example, fans say that Obi Wan's fighter looks "too CGI". I can't tell if it is or not.

 

I understand, but I contend that you can't always tell what's CGI and what's a model or puppet or if you can, sometimes the only thing that gives it away is the knowledge that some things simply can't be done with models or puppets.

It's a trade off. In the OT there are effects that are obviously models or puppets and in the PT there are effects that are obviously CGI. What's the difference?

 

Well, for your good vs. evil, I disagree with totally. IMO, it is much more interesting having no clear bad guy. I'll have to look at the rest of your points.

 

Okay, so let me get this straight: Everyone suddenly thinks that the PT is better than the OT just because someone posted a topic coming from the other side of the coin? Hmmm.

 

I thought his acting was tremendous when he was talking to Dex. I do not know where you get this idea that Ewan is not convincing in that part.

 

<<Okay, so let me get this straight: Everyone suddenly thinks that the PT is better than the OT just because someone posted a topic coming from the other side of the coin? Hmmm.>>

Huh? I don't think anyone has said that the PT is better. I for one think they are equal. And even if someone does, that is there choice.

 

Okay, so let me get this straight: Everyone suddenly thinks that the PT is better than the OT just because someone posted a topic coming from the other side of the coin? Hmmm.

Actually I already posted that I prefer the OT over the PT.

 

While I agree that the OT will always reign supreme...(What? Its what got me into the SW fever!)...and I do agree that Maul had little character development... I think Dooku has plenty. I mean, they discuss his past, motives, intentions... and well, thats enough backstory for me. I didn't like him though. Maul was cooler..

 

Fine let's address the rest of your points....

2) Characters - In the PT, I just can't seem to attach myself to the characters like I could in the OT. One of the reasons for this is because the PT is just introducing too many new characters all the time, whereas we followed only a handful of characters in the OT. Also, in the OT we had a very concrete and well developed villian in Darth Vader who was present in all 3 movies. In the PT, we had Maul who was very cool and could have rivaled Vader if he would have been a little better developed, but unfortunately was killed off after one movie. Now we have Dooku, who IMO has a little more background story to him, but is nothing more than an old man. Nothing really "catchy" about him.

They are all just set ups to the ultimate bad-@$$ Vader. Maul and Dooku are each a part of Vader. Maul is the great warrior bad-@$$ and Dooku is the smooth villian Vader was (at times). Vader is the ultimate Sith apprentice.

3) Good vs Evil - In the OT, even for a 3 year old it was easy to determine who the good guys and bad guys were and that the movie was about a plight against evil. Very simple to understand, but still had enough mysticism and subplots to make them great. However, in the PT, it's not so simple. All of the characters are deceibtful and the line between good and evil is a blur. Sure, it can make for a more interesting story, but also a very confused, mixed up one. I would hate to be on an acid trip and try to figure out what the hell is going on during AOTC.

Once again, it HAS to be this way. The OT is simple, its good vs. evil. Well the PT is all about how that evil comes to power. You didn't think that it just happened, did you? No, Palpatine slowly rose to power. And Anakin's fall was slow, too. He didn't just wake up one day and say, what the hell, I'll be bad today. To repeat a point from above, it has to be more complicated than the OT in order to set up the simple OT good vs. evil set up.

4) Acting and Chemisty of the Cast - I know this has been beaten to death, but it is one of the reasons. The OT may not have had great acting, but the chemistry was there. Now, in AOTC, I think Hayden and Ewan did a great job, but Natalie just doesn't compliment Hayden's performance very well. All of her lines were very flat and personally, they took me out of the movie. Hayden would draw me in, and Natalie would push me out.

Um, wasn't that the whole point? Anakin comes on to Padme, she pushes him away. Look at the scenes on Tatoine, and especially Geonosis to see the chemistry the two of them have.

5) Last, but not least: No Chewbacca!!! - Okay, I understand that Chewie being in the PT would not fit into the whole story very well, and personally I would hate it if he has a cameo in Episode III, but there is no loveable alien character in a main role that we can fall in love with. Sure we had Jar Jar, but he's no Chewbacca.

Let's face it, Chewie was a footnote for the entire saga. Was he cool? Yeah he was, but he didn't really have a job to do. He was Han Solo's bi#$%. The guy didn't even get a medal in ANH, for god sakes. And where would this alien character go? Would he tag along with the lovebirds? I hope not. Imagine "Um, Chewie could you leave, I wanna put the moves on Padme...". With Obi Wan on Kamino? For what purpose? Obi Wan doesn't need a Chewie type to back him up, he's a Jedi.

 

I think AOTC is superior to ROTJ in every way. It is comparable to ESB and from purely an annoyance factor brought on by "Greedo shoots first" and "Han steps on Jabba's tail" in the special editions I would rather watch it over ANH. I do not think TPM is "superior" to ANH or ESB but again, from my point of view it is still better than ROTJ (I know this is the favorite movie of some of you but I see too much wrong with it to keep it from hitting the bottom of my list).

I guess that still makes the OT better than the PT in my book... but then the PT still has one more story to go.

However, if I was to be a betting man I would count on liking the PT more in the long run. I like when the bad guys win and the PT ends that way. How can I not like it more?

RB

 

Well, I don't know how many others think the way I do, but I don't draw any clear distinctive line between the old movies and the new ones, they're all Star Wars to me, and after Episode III, when things finally connect, it's just going to be one big ride, quite an amazing and vastly encompassing story.

As I've said before, people expecting elements of the original movies in the newer ones will be disappointed, because this era of the galaxy is just so drastically different in comparison. Yes, the story's complicated, yes, the heroes fail, and the badguys and goodguys aren't all that distinguishable at times - that's just how the story goes. Then it all gets balanced out in the further episodes...4 - 6. And it's already becoming apparent what a tremendously different impact the old movies have with the knowledge and setup of the prequels. A depth is added to them that wasn't there before - and those movies were wonderful to begin with.

Ahh, now I'm rambling. Did I make any sense up there?

TVB.

 

i'm tired of the comparasin you can't honestly compare bikes and cars there different. the ot was little guys versus the evil big guys. the pt is the good big guys vs the evil little guys.

ot= small missions against the empire like hit squads sorta.
pt= polatics and deception, can't trust anyone that sorta thing.

i like both trilogies the same but they are realy totaly different you "just can't" make both trologies the same way.