PT Practical Effects in the Prequels- Sets, Pictures, Models, etc.

SW Saga Fan I've never seen a single person claim that "the PT was only 100% CGI and green screens". Not one. You say this happens all "over the internet". I find that highly doubtful since I've never seen one example in 17 years.

By the way, no one's upset. Don't know where you got that from. I'm simply saying, people here often post a photo of a set or miniature with some remarks about that refuting the people who claim there are no practical sets & effects in the PT. That's just a straw-man defense. The critics of the PT don't pretend those movies were like 300 & Sin City. Movies with no real sets at all. What the assertion is is that the Prequels went overboard with the use of CGI. There was too much of it - in their opinion. A reasonable claim since the lead actor in those movies says "By the third one they sent me off...off I went on my own & I spent 3 months in a green stage".

Now clearly EM doesn't mean that there was not one single practical element in any set he worked on in RotS. He's conveying a general feeling & impression he felt while making those movies. You could post an image of EM on a real set during RotS & say "EM is wrong!" What would be the point though? I think we all get what he means, which is roughly the same as what critics of the PT effects mean.

 

Now you're making assumptions, and that's a conversation killer.

I have no interest in nostalgia. I am only interested in a Star Wars aesthetic that feels as close to natural as possible. And location-shooting (esp. the use of natural light in outdoor scenes) is very important to me. It's the main reason why I prefer TPM to AOTC and ROTS, actually (and also why I'm not a huge fan of Dagobah). The environments in that film simply look real to me, while most of the environments in AOTC and ROTS (barring Tattooine and Naboo) do not. They look obviously digital, and so they do not lodge themselves in my mind as places I have experienced.

That said, I am 100% open to having these on-location environments significantly augmented with CG extensions, etc.

 

Yes, I'd like to see a thread about real sets and practical effects of TFA. The CGI spectacle called SW prequel trilogy has about 108 pages of pictures and discussions about the sets, miniatures and models, TFA alone, being practical and realistic, should have at least 500.
I'd open it myself, but I can't see why as I don't like that movie much. Even to point out it's flaws with every single post a couple of dozen times a day.

As long as I find the environment interesting, imaginative or visually stunning, as Lucas did in the PT, I don't care whether it's real or CGI. TFA is filmed in the desert, forest or on snow (the duel on the snow, good idea, bad execution) and it didn't interest me at all. It looked very earthly, which, to me, is not in accordance with the basic idea of SW. The PT's CGI fits the story, the OT's puppets and toys fit the story, TFA... Not really.

 

This thread was set up to "refute" the notion that there were no sets & practical effects in the PT (even though no one has ever said that). There's no need for TFA to mount such a defense.

How did you put up with SW from 1977-1999? For 22 years all you saw in SW movies were earthly environments. Was that in accordance with the basic idea of SW?
In fact even in TPM you saw a sprawling cityscape based on earth-like skyscrapers & Naboo, which is just Earth with Gungans. Seems the conclusion is that SW is not in accordance with the idea of SW.
Curious

 

I can not say I have seen it on the internet but when one of my friends talk about PT do he talk as if he believe it is 90% CG (ignoring the actors) and that is something bad. I don't know how much of it he actually believe and how much of it is just to tease me.

 

The basic idea of SW is a human myth set in space. And Earth-like environments (which is likely where humans and other life forms would be best equipped to live in anyway) have been a part of that from the very beginning.

That said, I didn't find any of the digital environments in the PT to be visually stunning. They looked mostly like bad Ryan Church artwork in screensaver form.

Star Wars is at its most beautiful when it makes you look at a familiar landscape as if it's your first time seeing it. With wonder. With the eyes of a child. And that's what successful fantasy does. It lifts the veil of the familiar that has accumulated on our minds, and lets us see the world anew. When I see Tattooine, Hoth, Naboo, Jakku, Yavin, etc, I see the beauty of deserts, wintry mountains, lakeside cities and jungles as if for the first time. The cynicism of "oh that's just a desert" doesn't come to mind. I'm a kid again, and I've never seen such a desert!

So familiar landscapes with alien structures, inhabitants and twists (like multiple moons or Suns, or a planet in the sky like Yavin IV) is definitely consistent with what Star Wars has done from the beginning, and it's a much more awe-inspiring way to go.

Though if you like psychedelic huge flower planets, that's fine too...

 

It does happen all over the internet. I too see it.

 

Whatever one thinks of the implementation of CGI in the prequels, it's worth appreciating how ballsy Lucas was in committing to using it for his vision. Up until 1999, the biggest visual effects film to that point was Titanic, which had 600 shots. TPM had 1,900.

 

We discussed the theme of the green screen windows just a few paged before this. It is not necessary to full this window with computer graphics but it is absolutely obligatory to have it if you want to show some dynamic landscapes outside. Maybe in that period, the beginning of the digital cinema it was something unusual for the actors, now is different. Anyway. Why using CGI in a FANTASY movie is a crime? Using green screens in a movie like the Wolf of Wall Street is a shame, but they used it. But when the computers graphics can build something that looks appropriate for the story.. I don't get it.

By the way, I didn’t know till today that the clones had CGI armor. Obviously I knew that they were digitally 'reconstructed" as they must be absolutely identical one to another, even when their faces are shown, but the armor.. I just didn't realize it, that's all. The cinema industry is an illusion industry. And it relies on revolutionary illusions, not conservative one, especially in the fantasy genre. So the point of this thread is to reveal that yes, there were enough practical effects in the PT no matter that they were revolutionary about the digital filmmaking.

 

No?

Oh yeah, maybe because the message behind this picture below, which has continually circulated all over the internet for more than 10 years and has been shared for more than a billion times (and which you have posted on this thread a few pages back by the way), wasn't made to make people believe that the PT was only 100% CGI and green screens:

 

Ewan & others refer to it years after the PT movies. EM describes "spending 3 months alone in a green stage" !!

Who's saying it's a crime? Look at movies like 300. Completely CGI. Many liked it. It's not about saying it's good, bad or indifferent. It's about calling a spade a spade. Not denying the extent of the digital animation in the Prequels. If PT fans like all of the animation then why play it down? Own it.

You see people say that the PT was literally 100% CGI without exception?? What kind of crazy corners of the internet do you frequent 'Slayer?

There's a thing called a joke SWSF. That image is to poke fun at the high volume of CGI in the Prequels. Even people who post that don't believe the PT are entirely animated movies with actors like 300 & Sin City. I think you're taking these kinds of digs & comments too literally.

 

If "high number of CG shots" = "artistic ballsiness," sure. But I don't equate the two.

The point is that for a lot of people, it was a flimsy illusion. There was too much CG saturation, and the quality of it (particularly the digital lighting) wasn't where it needed to be to sell the illusion. But for you, the illusion worked. I personally have difficulty imagining how one couldn't immediately tell that the clone troopers were digital, but that's because I've only ever seen the world through my eyes (which are hyper-sensitive to the difference between natural and artificial textures). My nephew, for example, thinks the PT looks incredibly real to him. Who am I to argue that it looks real to him?

 

For me, unprecedented for its time = ballsy from a production perspective. The artistic ballsiness stems from Lucas refusing to rely on too much existing iconography from the OT (aside from most of Tatooine) and instead committing to a new set of conceptual designs to tell the story. Whether or not Lucas was successful is up to the viewer, but there's no denying he took big risks.

 

I understand that, and agree to a certain extent.

Just wished he'd chosen a different artist to lead that re-conceptalization of the universe (or stuck with Chiang). The main reason for the conceptual artistic disaster that is AOTC and ROTS (strongly IMO) is that Ryan Church was sitting in place of McQuarrie and Chiang. And IMO, he's a hack, and barely good enough to do concept art for low-end video games.

 

Ouch. That bad, huh?

 

Well, it seems that some people have finally decided to move on to another person, other than Lucas, as a target for the reasons behind the so-called "disaster" that are the prequels...

That's a change...

But a lot more people take this meme seriously and now pass it as an undeniable truth, especially when it has been around for many years and still continues to be shared today as an argument by those who despise the PT and try to explain why "they suck". And now we had all this promotion for TFA last year around "the return to practical effects", while in reality the use of practical effects was never gone with the PT in the first place. An insult towards intelligence in my opinion...

Maybe you're taking those memes, and what is being said around the internet, too lightly and underestimate how it can easily influence many people...

 

The meme is pointing out that Lucas went overboard with CGI in the Prequels. That's a commonly held view. Anyone is free to disagree with it though. Trying to pretend the argument is "there were absolutely no sets & practical effects used in the PT" & then posting photos to refute an imaginary argument is what is a bit pointless. IMO.

In the case of TFA they said they'd rely on practical effects more - & they did. They used fewer animated characters (once again actors in stormtrooper suits for example), used alot more location shooting & in general built more complete sets. The PT used less & less of these methods as it progressed. As confirmed by the cast. Of course both the PT & TFA used practical & CGI but one had the balance more in the other direction.

 

You know, looking at that photo 10 years later, I realize how badly 'shopped that green screen pic is. It looks like someone took a photo of George and spiced it on a green background they found on Google.

 

If I've heard countless times the term "going overboard with CGI" for recent movies, I've failed to hear only once the term "going overboard with practical effects" being used for older movies... Like if using a lot of times CGI in a movie was absolutely something pejorative...

 

Then why a hundred pages showing the practical effects in the PT? Why not celebrate all of the animation? This thread gives the impression that practical effects are an incredible amazing thing. Almost as if they should've used more of it on the Prequels.

 

Nah, it's more proving to detractors that many of their claims (in this case in regard to oft-quoted practical effect/CG ratios) are super false. And I think you know that. Good twist though.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

I've never seen any ratios quoted. That's what makes this all so pointless. What do these photos prove? Do they demonstrate a particular ratio of practical effects? No, they just show that practical effects & sets & miniatures were used. Problem is, everyone already knew that.

 

Why are you saying this? Didn't you understand what I meant by that?

CGI is also an amazing tool just as practical effects.

Except, for an unknown reason, many people have, in some ways, become "allergic" when it is being used heavily in movies nowadays. But I don't recall, back then, when practical effects were used heavily in older movies, people complaining about its amount the same way as they complain about CGI...

 

Why would they? What was the alternative back then to practical effects? The complaints only come when there are two options & a film relies too heavily on one method over the other. Which comes down to opinion & also the quality of the effects. In the end these are supposed to be live-action films, not animated films. CGI is fine but the goal of CGI in a live-action film is to not look like CGI. If it doesn't, if it looks real then there's nothing to complain about. Clearly alot of the audience felt that the animation in the PT blatantly looked like animation. It's still an issue for many with some recent movies. Less so than in the Prequel era though bcs digital effects have improved.

 

Well, I do question George's judgment in choosing Church for the position.