PT Has George Lucas ever addressed the difference in "look" between the PT and CT

I like the idea (I first heard it a few years ago) of technology in GFFA being a relative stasis. The timeline from TPM to TFA may not mirror the technological progression seen from, say, the 1940's to 1990's, going from a specific era to one with supersonic passenger planes, moon landings, the internet, and so on.

There is a lot to the idea of technological stasis in SW (this is also explored to some degree in George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series). How would changes in technology (not development or progress) happen in a galaxy with technological stasis? The technology would reflect the demands/needs and from culture to culture/group to group, depending on many variables not least of all money. Thus, put very simply, the PT ships often reflect beauty, style, and status, while the OT ships represent more stripped down, utilitarian craft needed for war.

 

The PT is the 1920's - A time of fun and frolics. Very sophisticated architecture and designs, etc.

The OT is the 1940's - Grim and drab. The "sleekness" and colour of the 20's is gone. Replaced by industrial design, harsh angular shapes and grey colours.

Colour and beauty have literally been drained from the universe by 20 years of war.

All the many contrasts between the PT and OT in terms of design, colour, mood, narrative, etc. Are what I love more than anything about Lucas's Star Wars.

And as for the ST, I've no idea what message it's design, colour and aesthetic was trying to achieve (assuming anybody in the production even thought about these things beyond trying to make everything look like A New Hope) as it looks like 30 years after the OT nothing has changed which is just silly.

 

Indeed. An epic thematic sandwich, a gorgeous eye-brain-heart feast!

Totally unique in cinema. Never to be seen again.


To me...... the uniqueness of it is genius by definition.

 

I like the idea

just wish they'd found some way of explaining it within the films (or if they did it went right over my head so needed better explaining)

 

Me too, I had to learn from an outside source. Obi-wan called the era of the OT "the dark times." I guess that's all the explanation they were going to give!

 

EI looks great IMO but EII and III you can tell were shot digitally. I don't like how vastly different EII and III are in color and tone either.
Tatooine doesn't look right during the sunset, it almost likes like Geonosis.
Geonosis looks fake to me, to red, repetitive also similar to Tatooine.
Kamino also wasn't that impressive IMO.
You can also tell they never made a single clone trooper costume, all CGI apparently.
I'm not crazy about the architecture and design of the vehicles in EII and III, structures and ships look flimsy almost IMO.

 

I can't believe you're comparing II and III like it's nothing. III looks SO much better, and looks good in general, even in 2016.

 

Completelly dissagree. Kamino is one of the most impressive planets in the SW universe. The Japanese minimalism of their interior design, the almost surreally sterile plants and spaces in Tipoca city, the ocean and the rain are fascinating. Not to mention how Geonosis is again desert planet but very different to Tattoine.
And I really don‘t understand what is the problem with the digital shooting. The binar sunset of Tattoine looks better digitally, the illusion us better and after all, this is the main goal of the cinema: to show beautiful illusion that is an allegory of the reality.

 

Actually most people can't because they don't know what to look for in the first place..

Truth is that most people don't notice film grain either because they never really saw it much. On regular TV's and in SD grain is really knocked right out.

If anything the "digital" look of low to no grain is the look that people are most familiar with. It's only with large screen HDTV's and HD sources that grain is now actually part of the home theater experience in a real way. Even then trying to distinguish between actual grain and video noise is a whole other thing. AOTC has an overall cleaner video look I would say but ROTS video noise is next to indistinguishable to most people outside of videophiles who are examining grain patterns which repeat as opposed to digital noise which doesn't have a repeat pattern.

The color and tone changes vastly from ANH to TESB and ROTJ as well. Problems there?

I don't see that at all I have to say.

I don't see this similarity at all. Might as well say Jakku looks like Geonosis then. Does Tattoine look fake? I mean if it's that similar.

If it does for you then it does. I find it pretty astonishing really. Probably the most unique SW environment ever and not likely we are going to see anything like it again for a long, long time in the movies.

Apparently? So you are unsure then? As it happens it was all CGI. It's arguably the greatest thing ever in SW because so very many people thought that it was a combination of suits and CGI and when they found out it wasn't they didn't like that they couldn't tell and have been upset that they couldn't tell the difference ever since. Of course they protest that they knew all along.

Sure they did...

I have to say I always have a hard time understanding this. If these structures and ships are "flimsy" then what is the OT? Intangible? I mean the weight and solidity of AOTC and ROTS far outdoes anything ever seen in SW before. It's like I've said before comparing the opening of ANH to ROTS. The weight, solidity and mass of the Republic Cruiser is many times that of the Star Destroyer. This doesn't mean the ANH opening is poor (far from it) but they simply couldn't do that kind of work back then.

 

-What?

-Nope, the tone is fine with me and the colors don't clash with each other IMO. I just feel like EII is a color-gasm while EIII is to dark at times.

-I do specifically when Obi Wan is sneaking around and Anakin is looking for his mother.

-Yes during the sunset / speeder scene.

-You like Kamino OK.

-Your opinion IMO. If an audience is wondering if something is real or fake they might be taken out of the film also IMO.

-Yes

 

I don't see how. They know it's "all fake" in the first place. SW is especially fake and always has been.

It's a movie. The fact that all the SW films are among the most successful of all-time gives us the answer of whether or not audiences are taken out of the film.

The clear objective answer is that is not the case.

As I said before it's just so odd to me that some fans are the ones worrying about the audience when it's not the audiences problem at all but their own they are talking about.

What we as fans think is totally irrelevant to anyone else but other fans. The audience does not have a problem. The problem is anything was that the old `practical` fake ways we too fake to them so SW was the exception not the norm.

Now it's completely the other way around as the acceptance of SF, fantasy, superhero movies etc etc has never been at a higher level of success and popularity than right now and over the last number of years.

Yet some fans complain about things looking fake. Which is odd because obviously it`s more real to the audience than ever before.

If anything the PT and the way it looks and the way they were produced was a huge part of the change in that regards not only for the incredible success they had in terms of impact as movies in the theatres but in production terms with the changeover from film to digital. Thanks to SW and the digital push from Lucas film is next to finished. It pretty much was done in terms of both shooting films and is basically done in terms of screening them.


https://newrepublic.com/article/119431/how-digital-cinema-took-over-35mm-film


Digital formats began to displace film in earnest more than a decade ago and the charge was led by George Lucas. In 2002, Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones became the first major movie to be shot entirely on digital video, even though, back then, it had to be transferred on to 35mm film for most cinemas to show it. The producers of Attack of the Clones estimate that they spent $16,000 on 220 hours of digital tape. If they had used the same amount of film, it would have cost them $1.8 million.
Yet the real opportunity to axe costs digitally comes long after the final scene is shot. To produce and ship a 35mm print to an American cinema costs about $1,500. Multiply that by, say, 5,000 prints for a big movie and it comes to $7.5 million. Digital formats can do the same job for 90 percent less.
Overlaid on this is the growing importance of global box-office receipts. Digital distribution makes it feasible to launch a movie simultaneously on tens of thousands of screens across the planet, from Cartagena to Kolkata—and, while you’re at it, on platforms such as iTunes and on airplanes.
Moreover, no matter how carefully it is handled, every time a 35mm film print is run through a projector, it will degrade, collecting blemishes—scratches, tears, worn edges—that affect the viewing quality. Titanic reportedly played for so long in theaters that some prints fell apart in the projectors. In this sense, film is indeed mortal, perishable, fragile—human. This analogy would make digital “immortal." You show a digital copy of a film once or a thousand times and the quality remains undiminished while the studios’ bottom lines grow.

 

Not at all. As I said I doubt 99%+ of people would notice or care.

I knew it was because it was advertised but I didn't "notice" anything in particular except that when I went to one of the few actual digital cinemas around then it looked bloody spectacular.

Then again in later IMAX where again it looked bloody spectacular.

Having looked into it all I find is that it means different things to different people. I don't know what close means. If we are talking about theoretical lines of resolution then 4K cameras are better than 35mm which maybe only resolves to something over 3K.

What that means in actual real world terms is next to meaningless as per the actual presentation in theaters.

Movies are not made on film anymore. Some are shot but not made so everything is digital outside of the different methods of capturing 24 fps.

I don't get the conflation here. The camera used as opposed to the medium of film the images are captured on. The parallel is not exact there is it? I mean it should be the film opposed to the sensor used instead of the camera itself. It's all part of the process of course. Film stock is different over time as are the cameras. I would presume that it's generally agreed that the camera itself improved over time as generally did the film stocks used and versatility. The ROTS cameras as such were better as was the overall image as John Knoll noted. He also noted that the digital cameras were getting too much detail and so they had to filter them to get less to look more like softer film detail (or something along those lines).

Then of course you get into the larger issue of the capturing image or scanning itself. A theatrical print of a 35mm is a copy of of a copy of a copy. O-Neg to interpos to interneg then theatrical print. In terms of the Star Wars OT there is so much optical work and so many layers of film composited before you get to the O-Neg that as amazing work as they did it can't compare in the least to what can be done digitally.

In the case of the PT and AOTC and ROTS as digital capture they were able to work directly with the digital O-Neg from the start and therefore retain total image quality from the start. They were also able to manipulate it as they like. Burtt made a comment about how with digital you can just keep going and going and not have to lose image quality like optical film does.

That certainly is not my experience anymore than I have ever met anyone in real life (meaning outside of an online forum) that notices anything or says a thing about that or the OT SE's color timing.

Different yes. Poorer? Not in the least as far as SW is concerned. If anything the point is that colour, sharpness, details etc (save for grain obviously) is of a much higher quality. Now how much of that is because the OT simply wasn't going for the same kind of colour depth in the first place (and simply couldn't do it) and the optical compositing didn't allow for the sharpness or detail or depth of field.

Referencing the above in regards to theatrical prints being many copies down what happens now is that the O-Neg can be scanned and worked with directly. In the case of the SE's it was a combo of that and interpositives even down to the original film elements. That is why the SE's look so great compared to the OOT when looking at the compositing work. That was digitally redone for the SE's in most cases which is why the sharpness and details, colour depth etc of the SE's is so superior to the original versions.

I don't buy that one at all. I think that is the reason given by those people who for their own purposes knowingly give false information about the movies out and those who repeat it not caring if it's true or not. These same people are the ones who use the digital shooting as an excuse to create "reasons".

If that is what you think that is then it is for you. I don't see that at all. For one the CGI IS that good. It's pretty awesome.

I don't buy at all this idea of 'relatively low resolution'. I don't see how that works as the resolution is demonstrably far, far and away much higher than the OOT ever was in the theater. If anything then the "problem" would be that the resolution is far too high and then the logic would be that it's "plastic sheen, making them look fake" is due to far too much detail and colour.

For an example. On my 60" HDTV there is no way I can watch the PT from a SD disc. It looks terrible because the incredible detail and colour that we know is there does not show up. HD is a must. Watching the OT (SE's) from SD is not preferable but it's really not all that bad an experience. The level of detail, colour etc is not anywhere near as missed.

I go back to one of my basic theories is that for some people they set they "reality" of how something should look in SW in an arbitrary and variable way that makes the way it looked when they first saw the movies as the "right" way. It's the level of suspension of disbelief they personally accept. They want lighting to be a certain way and details to be a certain way and movement to be a certain way.

Even more basic for those who simply don't like the PT I find some people simply will themselves to complain about things that don't seem to bother them about any other movies even if they do exactly the same things as the PT.

That TFA is a digital film that has CGI all over the place doesn't bother them. They will use some tactic about how things "blend" together better etc etc. Meanwhile I just don't see it at all that way. The blend of the PT is absolutely amazing to my eyes. TFA doesn't even attempt to try the kind of blending of all elements like the PT does. In one scene to the next from the PT you can have actors on sets blended with models, miniatures, matte paintings, CGI, CGI creatures, practical creatures etc etc.

It seems to me if anything it's that for whatever reason they don't like blending of elements and actually prefer far less blending and to them that seems more real.

Fair enough that is what they see but then as I have also said some people actually look at Lucas' SW movies as dialogue driven with visuals and music for support because that is how they interpret movies to be while the fact is that is not the films that Lucas makes. They are visual and music driven with dialogue for support. That is the movies that I see which is fortunate for me.

As I have said over and again this:



is just as real to my eyes as this:



Actually more so overall as the latter is more easily processed as being an "obvious" "in-camera" set compared to the former which can't possibly be "in-camera".

Now the overall distinction is rather meaningless as I accept both as "real" per suspension of disbelief since both are impossible to actually be "in-camera"

 

Is there an industry, or even street, word for that digital "look", that sheen?

 

It's all anecdotal of course. Some seem to think it does mean worse as opposed to different. I have not encountered those people so what exactly would be different when watching a film print in 2002 and even if it's attached to it being digital at all is another matter.

Partly on film. Of course it had tons of CGI was was digital which they then had to make look like film. I don't know if the digital Rogue One is also being processed in post to look more film-like. I'm sure there are many things that can be done now.

Sure but less so than ever. From what JJ actually shoots on film to all the digital manipulation in post is a world away from the OT method. That is also an "obvious" thing that people also don't bother to talk about because it's not important.

I can only go by what they said. They talked about detail which as stated before they can go deeper into.

Obviously the images captured are going to be different based on what exactly you want to do.

1080 cameras couldn't do things that film could then and now 4K-8K can. That doesn't make JJ not want to shoot on film though so it's always something regardless of the digital make-over the film gets afterwards which negates much of the supposed necessity to shoot on film in the first place.

I think it is because it undermines the basis of the film argument because JJ and co are not making the movie on film in the first place. Merely shooting and then sort of pretending to themselves they are "old school" which is total rubbish of course.

I find this whole practical and film argument would work if they actually made the movie on film but they aren't going to do that but simply don't want to talk about it anymore than all the CGI used to create BB-8.

I have never heard that once myself (outside of here). They complain about the "CGI" but that is different.

 

Digi-sheen?

 

Yeah. Whatever it's called, I think it's the key to all of this.

Back when AotC came out, that was really the only thing I didn't like about it. But it was so all-encompassing, it magnified everyone's nitpicks about everything else. And we saw fandom go to the dark side.

Idk, there's so much to go into, a post isn't enough.

Sigh... This doent include much younger people, but I grew up watching the OT on VHS tapes on an '80s TV. Then AotC comes out and it's like, what? It was JARring. I was also in film school at the time and apprehensive about the digital direction film making was going.

Again, idk. Don't listen to me. But the digi-sheen is what it all comes down to in my view. But then again I have many theories on how completely apropos it all is to what's going on in that Galaxy at the time (think: The Overlook's hallways that don't line up etc. creating an unsettling sense of cognitive dissonance). Anyways, yeah, a post won't do my thoughts on this justice.

Btw, the digi-sheen doesn't bother me now. But even up to a year ago, it would make me feel like I ate a rotten piece of candy or something

 

...and see how Episode II unlocks the secrets of the entire STAR WARS saga.

 

Almost everything you need to know about the saga is in AotC.

I can't really pick a favorite SW film, but lately I just keep coming back to AotC.
Every scene is so packed with meaning, symbolism and allegory. The whole saga is that way, but Clones seems to go beyond a certain threshold.

 

Just like TESB, second episode in a trilogy is full of answers and revelations. Just like ep 8 will be.

 

Have the Wachowskis ever addressed the difference in "look" between The Matrix Revolutions and Speed Racer?

 

41:48​

​

 

Do they mention it in this one and a half hour video that I'm not really too fussed about watching? If not, then you are still disqualified via gif.