Burn. Sizzle.

Ah kin feel the heat...

TVB.

 

The original trilogy was great..no doubt. But I think the only reason some people like it better is because its now just plain "old", and many of us were very young when it came out so we grew up w/the OT.
IMHO, I like the prequel MUCH MUCH better. CGI? D*mn strait! These kinds of movies require CGI and new technology to make them better....better than stiff plastic fake looking puppets.
Not to mention we live in times of whiners. Everyone complains 100% more than they did back then. No one seems to be happy these days unless they're complaining..(i.e. Lucas is racist, too much CGI, too much sexual inuindos, too much violence, blah blah blah.) Like when everyone seemed to b1tch and moan about Jar Jar....puh-leez...if you want to be offended by a fictional CGI character, you've got WAYYY too much time on your hands...use it to do something constructive.
[/soapbox]
BTW, I like ALL the Star Wars movies, but after 30 years of watching the OT, yes, Im gonna stick up for the PT.

 

Alot of the CG aliens in AOTC reminded me of the aliens in Men in Black, especially Dex and the creatures in the Arena. I would say that lots of the CG aliens, while impressive, lack a certain 'warmth', for want of a better word, that the OT aliens had. Give me a fake looking rancor puppet anyday.

The space ships on the other hand look fine as CG creations - the only problem I have is that I dislike some of the designs, but I have no problem with the actual effects themselves.

 

I don't know. It's just hard to put my feelings into words I guess. I love the PT, but the OT is better IMO. When I watch the OT, I am drawn into it and I pay attention to every line and what meaning and significance it has to the overall story. I do this with the PT as well, but it feels more like I'm watching a fireworks show than what my perception of SW was growing up. It just don't feel the same.

 

Can someone explain why this thread hasn't been locked and ordered to relocate to the Misc. forum?

I want an explanation. NOW.

 

Get over it dude. This thread has been on here for over a week.

 

...and that makes it lock proof?

 

Lock a thread with a valid opinion?

Sheesh, learn to live with differing opinions. 90% of the threads are already gusherific, give people with other opinions a place to hang out at least.

 

I didn't say it should be locked, I said that just because it has been open for a week doesn't mean its' lockproof.

 

I didn't say it made it lock proof. What I'm saying is we have been discussing this topic in a civilized manner for over a week now, and I see no reason why the mods should lock it. GriffZ already passed on the option on the first page anyways. Anyways, back to the conversation.

 

That's cool then.

 

To know my opinion on this matter just go to the Why the PT will always get grief thread.

 

Okay. After spending the last hour reading this thread, its time to voice my opinion.

But first, let me give you a short background on myself. I was born in 1981, and I first saw some of the OT back when I was a kid. I didn't fully watch and absorb the films until early 1999, in the thick of the TPM hype.

When I saw TPM, I had the same revelation that some of you had when you watched the OT. It was a masterpiece. Its story might not have been the greatest, and sure it had its flaws (Jar-Jar), but it was a new experience to me.

I think I can talk for all of us newer Star Wars fans and say that the PT has the *magic* that the OT had for the older Star Wars fans. Its just that special to us.

We're the new generation of Star Wars fans, and the CGI and the story, etc. all have supreme importance for us. Like someone earlier stated, one reason why a lot of the older Star Wars fans, (kids or adults when they came out), do not enjoy the PT as much is because Star Wars wasn't new to them anymore. It was to me when TPM came out.

In my eyes, the PT is better than the OT for the simple fact that I was around when it came out, and I will always remember how it changed my life.

We all agree that Star Wars was a life-changing experience for all of us, but the key point that we all differ in is in what movie series does that for us. We all love Episodes I-VI, but it depends on which series was new to us at the time.

For most of you, the OT was the life-changing trilogy so of course it will hold a special place in your heart. But for newer fans like myself, the PT will be the trilogy that I will forever hold as my favorite, because I was there when it came out.

DS

 

I fit into an odd category of Star Wars fans. I'm not new to the saga and yet I feel the PT has just as much magic as the OT. I was born in 1981, saw ROTJ in the theaters as a very very small kid. I have a drawing I made when I was 3 years old of R2-D2 and C-3PO. My parents tell me I knew all the dialogue by the age of 5 and would speak it as I watched the movie. I have been immersed in Star Wars all my life. The OT did capture my imagination as a young child. Now, fast forward to 3 years ago. I enjoyed TPM, it had it's flaws, and I was disappointed a bit. However, I never lost sight of the fact that it was the beginning, the basis for the saga. I understood the groundwork was being laid down. May 16, 2002. My expectations for AOTC are shattered and I felt like a kid again. If TPM didn't have the magic of the OT, then certainly AOTC does. 20 years from now, we will look back and view the PT as a classic. When I have kids, they will watch 1-6 and become huge fans, oblivious to the fact that at one time the idea of Jar Jar and the Ewoks were scorned and thought of as unpopular.

 

I couldn't agree more, foxbatkllr.

Star Wars is ONE saga. Thats why they are called Episodes. Sure, we will have our favorite few episodes, but they are meant to be seen as one. In 20 years, all of the movies will be classics, CGI will be universal, and no one will be having this debate except those who remember their release (us!).

On another note, I think the reason a lot of people are having problems with all of the CGI is the fact that it is a relatively new tecnological achievment. Just like you think the CGI in AOTC looks *fake* I laugh at the Rancor of ROTJ. I grew up in a time when CGI was the standard, not the exception. I have no trouble believing the clonetroopers are real, and CGI does not bother me.

I'm not saying that you guys are old, or not "with the times" just that in a few years, the AOTC CGI will be accepted by those who can not remember anything but. Unfortunately, you are forever tainted by living in a time before CGI, and I think that it ruins your viewing experience.

DS

 

I can understand some of the criticisms of the prequels. I even agree with some of them though I still like the prequels. However, I posted following on why I think the criticisms of CG was the "most stupid complaint about AOTC."

The most stupid complaint I have heard is that the film has too much CGI and that the CGI is obvious. I have heard this critcism more often from the fans than the film critics.

For example, I have heard from some that the ships in AOTC are obviously CG. I am unable to clearly tell whether ships such as Jedi starfighter are CG or models. They all look fine to me and are reasonably consistent with the look of ships in the OT.

Also, in TPM, I assumed that the space battle at the end was all CG since GL was promoting the benefits of CG. However, the TPM DVD shows that these scenes involved a combination of CG images and models. I challenge anyone to pick out which ships are CG and which are models.

Therefore, either I am going blind or this criticism about the CG in AOTC is just bogus.

As Bill O'Reilly would say on Fox, "Tell me where I am wrong."

 

I couldn't have said it any better myself, jedi-jeff.

The only major scene that I thought looked fake was when Anakin is riding the Shaak and the Reek. Other than that, I couldn't tell that anything else was "obvously" fake.

Maybe I'm just blind, or whatever, but I am far too involved in the story to be worried about such trivial things. Maybe if you guys just wrapped yourselves back into the story that you guys say you are fans of, you would forget about the CGI complaints.

DS

 

I'm not complaining about the ships and the inanimate objects, so much as the "living" things. You can tell that they are CGI no matter how much you want to ignore it. A good example is Dex. Does it take anything away from the movie? No. Does it make me dislike the movie? No. Do I prefer the OT over the PT? Yes. When I started this thread did I want it to turn into a CGI debate? No. Did it? Yes.

The only reason I even mentioned CGI at the beginning was to say that you can tell that certain creatures in the PT are not tangible objects, where in the OT, they are.

 

But if Dex was done in the OT, he'd be even worse looking. That's my argument in favor of CGI. You may be able to tell something is CG, but it still looks better than if it were a puppet or a guy in a suit. You couldn't have characters like Watto in the OT.

 

Well, a good few times, CGI wont look fake, and it will even look good, but it is still clearly CGI. Allot of times with creaters this happens, as you said with the Shack (thing). Dex was very CGI'ish as well, but aside from that, it looked somewhat real. Ships, droids, machines are usally harder to tell, since they dont have an organic feel to them.

I am willing to bet that the OT will be remembered in another 20 years, and the PT as well, but will the PT be remembered like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom will be remembered, or will it be remembered because they are great films? My personal beliefe, TPM will be the TOD of Star Wars, but AOTC and probably E3 will be remembered for being prety good. That is just me, and we wont know for 20 years, but hey.

 

Responding to the original poster's statment....


I would agree with the CGI cartoonish stuff as far as the force lightning goes. Palpatine's looked much better.

 

[blockquote]Dex was very CGI'ish as well, but aside from that, it looked somewhat real.[/blockquote]

I thought Dex looked fine to me. Unless I have a "real" Dex to compare, I do not know how I am suppose to know if he is "very CGI'ish".

In contrast, I could tell that Yoda was CG because his "texture" is not quite the same as the puppet version that can be used for comparison. I was somewhat skeptical of this CGI Yoda and I was surprised how well he turned out.

The only other times I can tell that something is clearly CG if the CG element does not interact quite right with the human character. I only saw two obvious examples of this:

1. Anakin riding the Shaak

2. Padme biting the Shuura (aka the pear)

 

I would agree with the CGI cartoonish stuff as far as the force lightning goes. Palpatine's looked much better.

Funny thing about that is, they probably did it basically the same way as the original lightning from ROTJ-rotoscoped on each individual frame. I don't know that for a fact, but I would guess that's how they did it. Same way they do lightsabers.

 

You know, since someone brought the topic of lightsabers up, I have a question. I seem to remember reading a book of the making of Star Wars as a kid, and I thought it said they made the lightsabers with spinning beads on a rod, and by reflecting light off of them. Is this true?

 

and I thought it said they made the lightsabers with spinning beads on a rod, and by reflecting light off of them. Is this true?

No. They had an artist literally draw the saber over the frames of footage. It is done the exact same way today, only the artist draws on it digitally but it's still the same basic process (quite lengthy too).