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

Yes, but they didn't comp them that well. And thus they looked fake. There's bits on naboo where they have real pillars and halls and they look great. Then other bits just look terrible.

 

Cool:



Not Cool:



In my humblest of humbles of course.

 

And so I'm not accused of bias or being a 'cool H8R'

Cool:


Not Cool:

 

Do you have it with bigger images? It is a bit hard to see

 

Biggest I could find in the 5 minutes I gave the subject . There's some images of the Kamino miniatures and finished scenes also. They fit into the 'Not Cool' category. Having said that (about image size) I think they are 1920 x 816 so are HD images.

 

Here's the image. However, I don't see what's wrong with a matte painting of a giant pillared room, somewhere that doesn't exist in real life, and could never be built as a set.

 

I'd say the compositing for that scene hasn't aged particularly well, largely because employing full CGI environments back in 2002 was still in its infancy. By 2005 though, ILM had much more success in doing the same thing for a similar shot:

 

Are we having to defend why we are talking about practical effects now?

DD, your arguments are really belittling and I really wish you'd curb your need to agitate prequel fans.

Every thread it seems like. Every goddamn thread.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

I would highly appreciate the fact if you read the other user‘s post, for example the previous I wrote and not because is mine but because I commented this aspect. Let‘s repeat it for a 1457th time: this thread is dedicated to the practical effects because: as I discussed exactly with you before in this threads, there is an urban or more precisely, internet legend that the prequels have between 0 and 5% practical sets and it is the stupidiest legend because it was practically (pun intended) impossible to that in those times. That‘s it.
Maybe I should make a thread “Why using CGI in fantasy movie is not bad“ only to prove that a specific sort of fanatics would came and smash it intp pieces in a Sith like rage.

 

Not sure where you found that statistic. The "legend" is simply that the PT relied too much on CGI for alot of people's tastes. That's it. It's never been quantified in that manner. Therefore there's nothing to disprove.

No need to defend anything Persch. I'm completely on board, just a bit surprised that PT fans are this positive & enthusiastic about practical effects. I also think they're the way to go. The more the better. Seeing 100+ pages celebrating the use of practical (in the PT section of all places) is quite heartening. Just goes to show that Lucasfilm was on the money for deciding to focus on them even more in the ST.

Some location shots should maybe be included. IMO the prequels always looked better with location shooting as opposed to studio sets:



Not a fan of the space canoe but this was a stunning locale.

 

Did I say there was anything wrong with a matte painting? Matte paintings are awesome. Its the poor compositing that irks me. Just like the one in the Return of the jedi.

 

Went there years ago. It really was stunning. Space canoe is, well. Space canoe.

 

Flash Gordon wants his canoe back!

I've been to Lake Garda. Also stunning.

 

If you say "PT all cg" and "OT all real sets", you don't know the the process to realize Star Wars and you are discrediting both trilogies.

 

Agreed. Absolutely.

And, PaulWrightyThen ...I am interested to know what bothers you in terms of composition. As somebody who makes websites and sometimes branches out to photography, I get criticism from both sides equally and maybe these folks do, too. Curious!

 

I think he's talking about the actual compositing itself, not the composition as in the framing. Like how the elements are all put together, live action/matte/CG.


Sent from my brain using thumbs.

 

I am indeed talking about compositing, not composition. Compositing is the combining of visual elements from separate sources into single images, often to create the illusion that all those elements are parts of the same scene.

My issue with the examples above is they look fake. The background footage and live action green screen footage look 'off'. Granted it was early days in digital compositing land. But, to my eyes, the optical (ie. all done on film) compositing done on Empire Strikes back looks way better. Return of the Jedi seems to suffer for some reason. I'm not saying digital compositing isn't better than digital composting. Hell no. Just that shot in particular looks poop.

 

And make no mistake, compositing is hard work.

 

Couldn't resist.

But I still fail to see why it's that bad.

I'll use another example, Doctor Who. Doctor Who has been using bad special effects for decades. Does that inhibit my enjoyment at all? Not one bit, because I can clearly see what the effects are trying to portray.

Star Wars' effects are always miles ahead of Who's.

Why is there this obsession with realism in a series with space wizards, tiny hooded scavengers and teddy bear warriors expected to always look perfect?

 

Ha, Yeah, I don't like that one. I'll give you that. It always felt a little unnecessary.

 

I've really have never got what the problem with the first shot here is. It seems that this is the most popular shot from AOTC for those who are complaining about I'm not quite sure what.

Obviously it's looks the way that Lucas wanted it to look or else it would not have been used. They really are not the same shot. Similar in that they show an area around the same place but the latter one is at a much lower level.

I don't know off-hand if the latter shot is CGI, a miniature or a "more realistic" matte-painting off-hand.

What I find rather odd is that the former shot is one that rather obviously is a far more "old school" style matte painting like the type you would have in the OT.

Now knowing what import Lucas puts on every single shot and moment in each of his movies if he was unhappy with it then he would have replaced it with one he liked.

With the way Lucas works I wouldn't at all be surprised if for AOTC he went with an oil painting angelic look that was "unrealistic" knowing that he would then use a shot that was more "hard reality" of a the fallen temple that now was brought down to earth.

Yes he thinks about every shot that much.

I understand that they look fake to you for whatever reason.

Obviously not every shot can please everyone. There are many shots I can point to in the OT that I can point to that look "fake" to me no problem but I can't say I really ever much worry about them. They are what they are for that time and what the limits were of what they could do.

Of course when talking of the OT the SE's had lots of work redone digitally because they were never totally happy with what they had in the first place but that was the best they could do like the Battle of Hoth but they knew they could get away with it back then.

If anything the difference is that by the time of the PT Lucas could get the look he wanted to and was happy with while during the OT days due to all the limitations of optical he had to settle for the best they could do (which was still way better than just about anyone else anyway).

Well ultimately it's Lucas.

The first is more a skirmish while the latter is all-out war on a galactic scale.

 

I think it's a matter of compositing. Look at the three Jedi in the foreground of the first shot. The way in which they're standing doesn't quite match the plane upon which Mace and Obi-Wan are walking. The shot isn't outright bad, it just looks funky because of the way it has aged.

 

The difference (aside from the color palette) is that TESB takes place with what is basically a guerrilla force (you know, the small band of rebels they keep talking about?) fighting a delaying action, while AOTC shows two fully equipped armies charging headlong into each other until one side or the other breaks and runs, like Gettysburg. Of course the latter is going to "busier" than the former.

 

War is hell.