Why the PT will never be as good as the OT

Discussion in 'Attack of the Clones' started by Sebulba-Dug, Jun 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Count_Vince Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    Sebulba-Dug, you've hit the nail on the head, my friend!

    IMO, the PT will *never* even come close to living up to the legacy of the OT. Although the new triology still awaits its conclusion, this is blatantly obvious. It takes no genius to see that Episode I & II simply didn't "grab" people the way to OT did. Sure, lots of kids are watching the flicks, but, if you're honest with yourself, you just *know* they will forget them almost in a heartbeat; the same way they'll rather quickly forget about Matrix, MIB or pretty much any other film. There is nothing in the PT that really stands out among the masses of movies kids can choose from these days. There is - no - magic.

    Why is that? Honestly, I think it *has* to do with the ridiculous overuse of CGI. Now don't give me some standard lines about how advanced this technology is, and how ILM can't really build this and that, and yadda yadda yadda. I am not stupid. I know that, and I know that, in some cases, CGI is more than justified. However, not in all. IMHO, just because you *can* do it on your computer doesn't mean you *should*. I happen to be one of those that know what Sebulba Dug is talking about when he claims the models and puppets of the OT felt more real. Face it, they did. Because they were not as overly clean and shiny and sleek as the stuff we see in the PT.

    So, why didn't Lucas use a healthy mixture of good CGI and models? Because the industry would -- as some claim -- laugh at him? Well, since when does he care, people?! The man himself stated on multiple ocassions that he doesn't give a cr@p about the critics - and the movies are getting bashed anyways. So why not use some old school tricks to make those films stand out amodifferent from the antisepthic flicks of today? Why in the world did the PT have to turn into a bag of fancy animations and a crapload of explosions? What did Lucas have to prove? That he can create a few hundred of computer-animated sets with coutnless aliens running around? Well, we knew that before he did it. We knew it since we know about the possibilities of modern technology. We knew it because it's been done before in similar fashion. Nothing groundbreaking or innovative there, George. Sorry.

    So the effects aren't likely to make a lasting impression on kids. Then what could? The story of course! Yes, the story could. But does it? No. Obviously, the story of the PT is more confusing than that of the OT, but I still think it could've been pulled off much better. The pacing just seems very, very weird. We have pretty much no tangible story in TPM, than a lot of choppy, loosely connected stuff going on in AOTC, and, as it looks, as real *bulk* of film left to go with Episode III. Too many different characters, too. I mean, come on, just look at freakin' Maul! Why kill a potentially great villain just to introduce yet another Sith Lord *at the end* of Ep II? I mean, we all know Dooku's bound to meet a sticky end in EpIII anyways, given the fact that he is of *no* importance in the OT. So, why bother?! jango is another good example. All those two-second characters are really annoying and confusing, IMO. "Oh yeah, let's introduce a totally new guy and have him do some important stuff, then let's kill him off although we could need him again. But we can make up yet another guy if it really becomes neccessary." Superb, George, superb...

    Now, people, don't flame me, call me a basher or yell at me to leave these boards. I AM a SW fan. Have been for a while. And I still hope that, with Episode III still coming, the PT might somehow shape up to something. At the moment, however, it looks like those movies live sorely on their name tag and some extensive media hype, but will not mean anything in the long run. I hope it won't be that way. But it sure looks like it.

    Out.
  2. Sebulba-Dug Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 1
    "The characters in the PT are more complex. The OT characters were comparatively one-dimensional - each fit a carefully selected archetype (Luke=hero, Leia=princess, Kenobi=Merlin etc.) This may resonate more at first but also gets tired more quickly on repeated viewings.

    "Gets tired more quickly on repeated viewings"??? Hmmm. Then explain why most of us have been watching these movies for 25 years and still love the characters from the OT.

    3) Social commentary: I'm not saying the PT is an incisive barb on today's society. Nonetheless, it does have some stabs in that direction. Militarism, commercialism, corruption, mob rule, political deceit, complacency and overconfidence - the OT didn't address these issues at all. The evil Empire is not much more than a cardboard.

    What about the Empires similiarities to Nazi Germany in the OT?

    6) Foreshadowing: We KNOW so much here that the characters don't know. We KNOW Anakin will turn, so we watch him for signs of evil. We KNOW Palpatine is really Sidious, so all his lines take on a double meaning. We KNOW each apparently victory is actually a defeat. The OT has no double entendres like this.

    I see your point, but doesn't knowing take away the fun of wondering how it's gonna end? It's great that we can tell when the acting or certain lines are foreshadowing an event that we know will take place, but isn't the point of foreshadowing to give clues to something we don't know is gonna happen? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of foreshadowing when you know how it ends.

    8) Death and dying. When Qui-Gon dies, Obi-wan shows genuine grief and rage. When Shmi dies, Anakin shows genuine fury and grief. The OT deaths don't convey that sense of pain and loss. The worst is Yoda's death in ROTJ - Luke hardly shows any grief at all, only regret that he didn't get more training.

    I don't really think you can use this to compare the two. Sure, the PT does show more emotion when it comes to the death of characters, but in the OT, the characters that died didn't really have a strong bond with the characters that were still alive. Obi-Wan did train Luke for a short time, and Luke did show some emotion when he died, but how can you compare this bond/death, or even Yoda's death to the bond/death of a character like Shmi or Qui-Gonn where the characters involved are very attached to each other?

    One other thing: I almost cry every time that Ewok in ROTJ gets killed and his friend gives that little moan. Isn't that a good display of emotion? ;)

    I can't really debate some of your other points because I agree, but your agruement is no less flawed than my own. ;)
  3. DarthHomer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2000
    star 5
    The reason the prequels aren't having the same cultural impact as the original trilogy is beacuse it's 2002, not 1977. You can never recapture that magic.
    Even the much heralded Matrix and Lord of the Rings films haven't had anywhere near the impact Star Wars had in the late seventies and early eighties. I blame all our new fangled ideas, and products :)
  4. MadMardigan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 4
    Ahh count Vince....

    The old Ian Malcolm argument. Lucas was too busy figuring out if he could, he never stopped to figure out if he should. I completely agree. What Lucas hasn't figured out is that that overuse of CGI characters, places and things creates a disconnect from the audience. Yeah the effects in the OT are crappy compared to today. Because of that, though, they were used sparingly. Most of the OT are real sets filled with real people wearing real costumes. CGI isn't there yet that can realisticly portray reality. Jar Jar and Yoda looked great. Unfortunately that means they only looked a little better than Shrek.
  5. TheVioletBurns Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    star 4
    Is it that impossible to enjoy the movies?

    TVB.
  6. bleh19 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2001
    star 4
    There were plenty of real sets. Even the "digital" sets were made of models, except the droid factory. None of us know which ships were models or CG.

    So, no one is in a place to complain, yet.
  7. JOHN6370 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 3, 2002
    star 1
    Sorry, i did not read all your post... anyways you are right and wrong at the same time.... for me TPM sucked as a starwars movie, good sci-fi, but just a bad movie.... Now Aotc is becoming my fav starwars movie...it is no ESB, but is some ways it is a better movie then ESB.... I the story in ESB is great and so is AOTC they both set up things in the starwars movies that make them STARWARS movies and not just sci-fi..... Trust me is AOTC came out in 1981 even with soso graphics, it would be most peoples fav.... if EP3 is just as good as AOTC the pt might be better then the OT, but ep3 has to be much better then AOTC and ESB, if it is not you are right it will never be as good as the ot, well for most people anyways...... but for me they are all just one big movie...and that is the way it is suposeto be........
  8. tyronen Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2002
    star 1
    There is nothing in the PT that really stands out among the masses of movies kids can choose from these days.

    There's nothing in the OT that can do that either. Today's kids have far too much bombarding them for ANY film, no matter how good it is, to have the impact Star Wars had 20 years ago.

    Children who saw the OT for the first time during the SE re-releases liked the films, but they didn't stand out from other blockbusters that year (eg. the Lost World).

    Why is that? Honestly, I think it *has* to do with the ridiculous overuse of CGI.

    Films like Toy Story, Shrek, etc. use CGI heavily, and I didn't notice kids complaining.

    We have pretty much no tangible story in TPM, than a lot of choppy, loosely connected stuff going on in AOTC

    ANH's story is no more tangible than TPM's and the opening parts of ESB and ROTJ are largely disconnected from the rest of each film.

    look at freakin' Maul! Why kill a potentially great villain just to introduce yet another Sith Lord *at the end* of Ep II?

    Well, why kill a great villain like Tarkin in ANH to replace him with a timid, bullied Admiral Piett, or a forgettable Jerjerrod?

    All five films had a secondary, one-time villain: Tarkin, Boba Fett, the Emperor, Darth Maul, Jango Fett. Yes, I know Boba appears in two OT films; see below.

    jango is another good example. All those two-second characters are really annoying and confusing

    Boba Fett is a good example too. He appears as a mysterious, shrewd villain in ESB, becomes a fan favorite, then diminishes in ROTJ to just another of Jabba's bodyguards, ending with a dismally anticlimactic death.

    Then explain why most of us have been watching these movies for 25 years and still love the characters from the OT.

    Because at the time, the OT were the only movies of their kind, so they made a lasting impact on people, especially those who were children at the time. No film can do that now.

    What about the Empires similiarities to Nazi Germany in the OT?

    The only real similarity is the destruction of Alderaan. By that logic, the Trade Federation's use of concentration camps is also a Nazi parallel. Of course, the fact that we don't SEE either one diminishes their impact considerably.

    doesn't knowing take away the fun of wondering how it's gonna end?

    Not in the PT, it ADDS to it. Take Palpatine's speech to the Senate; bland platitudes if you don't know he's the future Emperor, jaw-dropping doubletalk if you do.

    in the OT, the characters that died didn't really have a strong bond with the characters that were still alive

    My point exactly. The PT cast has a different, more realistic, kind of chemistry. We don't have Han and Leia trading barbs in the PT; if we did, it would just feel like a repeat.

    I almost cry every time that Ewok in ROTJ gets killed and his friend gives that little moan.

    I for one feel like CHEERING every time an Ewok gets shot. If only I could sic an AT-ST on Barney too...

    -tn
  9. augusto Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 4
    I think what's funny about this CGI discussion, is that most people don't really know what is a set (or a partial one), a model or a complete CG environment.

    One guy was saying how Palpatine's chair looked crappy and was CGI!

    As far as Yoda being just a bit better than Shrek, that's absolutely wrong. And no, this version is much better than the puppet, but it's a religious issue with people that are too fond of the OT, that they miss the puppet.

    Any casual viewer that sees Yoda, is not thinking, damn I wish they used the puppet.

    Even Frank Oz agrees that the CG version is better. But what does he know, eh? We've got all the experts here!
  10. TheVioletBurns Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    star 4
    tyronen, you make some good points. Well posted.

    TVB.
  11. Pooja Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 6
    1) CGI - Now as much as I like the planets and creatures GL can create with CGI, it has too much of a "cartoony" feel to it. If you watch the OT, it's all very real looking.

    I'm trying to think of a positive thing to say about this statement but nothing comes to mind.

    Is it that impossible to enjoy the movies?

    You bet.
  12. foxbatkllr Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 6
    So, why didn't Lucas use a healthy mixture of good CGI and models?

    I find it incredibly ironic that you can't tell the difference between CGI and models...There are far more models than you realize. There are models of all the arena creatures, the entire arena itself is a model. People complain about "bluescreen" but the fact is it is hardly used any more in the PT than it was in the OT.
  13. Pooja Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 6
    I just cannot pinpoint why people struggle to make sure that the prequels get dissed on a daily basis.
  14. sdman Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    CG is the airbrush of today -- abused, overused, and will look cheesy and ironic in the years to come.

    CG people still can't grasp the idea that it's not what you do, it's how it's shown.

    in the OT, even though we know they were models, they were never got in the way of the story. in fact, they still look impressive and "blend in" with the story.

    right now there's a tendency in the CG industry to be fixated and fetishize reality. when i see this in movies, the impression i get is: someone is taking such an enormous effort to similate something that i already know. it's disturbing, and gets in the way of the story.

    too many shots in th PT were framed like they were "proof of my dope skillz" shots, meaning they were framed to say "look, we can simulate random motion paths and we'll zoom into it just as the speeder passes the awesome-looking towers." why do i need to see this?

    and the cinematography suffers as well. too many perfect-looking landscapes where the trees just happen to be here, the buildings just happen to be in perfect balance, the waterfall just happen to be there, and the spaceship just happens to smoothly cross from one sweet spot to another on the frame.

    this kind of approach destroys the illusion that we're seeing a footage, in which someone lugged a camera to an actual place and filmed it. instead, what we see is a rendering

  15. MadMardigan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 4
    fox bat-

    That's nearly completely wrong. The PT uses bluescreen almost extensively to create a digital back lot whereas the OT had a great number of sets that were actually built. And if it they werent then they filmed in a real place (ie Hoth=Norway, Endor = redwood forest)

    Very people on this Earth argue about how "real" looking Hoth looked or how "real" looking Chewie looked.

    The special effects in the OT are actually pretty good when you think about. I mean the space ships are fine. The aliens are fine. Really all you have to do in the OT is fix Matte Lines and the Rancor and EFX are still as good anything out today. In fact when CGI was used in SE's like Jedi Rocks, it made the film worse.

    CGI has it's place and is a great tool. But it does have limitations, especially when dealing with creating living creatures.
  16. Pooja Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 6
    Right. That's like making a pornographic film and complaining that it is just a tool to show nudity.

    Star Wars is a tool for storytelling and visuals, and I must say, I'm deeply impressed.
  17. sdman Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    heh heh,
    if lucas had real balls, he would've done the PT as an animation. it seems like he's got the right mindset for it.
  18. Pooja Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 6
    Wouldn't matter, because people (like yourself) would still find nonsensical things to complain about.
  19. bleh19 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 2001
    star 4
    Tell me what ships were CG instead of models, and then complain.

    Besides the Coruscant chase and the skies of Kamino(Jango vs Obi Wan), both of which had to be bluescreen, there are 3 heavy bluescreen "sets". The Arena/battlefield, Kamino interiors, and the Droid Factory(mainly b/c it was added in reshoots).

    Models, and matte paintings ARE used plenty, JUST LIKE THE OT.

  20. sdman Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    Right. That's like making a pornographic film and complaining that it is just a tool to show nudity.


    i suppose, for different people, watching star wars -- or any films -- is like watching porno = to fetishize an object of desire and get high on it. and watch it over and over again. if that's the case, more power to you.
  21. foxbatkllr Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2001
    star 6
    I still find it rather ironic that most people here bashing the CGI couldn't tell the difference between CGI and a model.
  22. barnsthefatjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2001
    star 5
    I agree with most points made by Sebulba-Dug in the first post, however, I do not feel that these are valid reasons for why the PT will never be as good as the OT.

    In my mind, the PT will be BETTER than the OT because the bad guys will win.
  23. Pooja Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 6
    Perhaps we'll never know...
    :(
  24. DarthCyruellen Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2002
    star 1
    WHY is this thread still here? :mad: It's NOT specifically about AOTC, so it needs to be LOCKED. :mad: Like you LOCKED my thread. :mad:

    LOCK THIS NOW. :mad:

    :mad:

  25. sdman Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2002
    I still find it rather ironic that most people here bashing the CGI couldn't tell the difference between CGI and a model.

    well, if lots of people thought the models looked like CG, then ILM definately didn't get their job done.

    ;)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.