Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't think ANYTHING will ever come close to the shock and awe generated by that opening Star Destroyer shot in Star Wars. Not in terms of the technical aspects of the shot, but because the genie's now out of the bottle.

Spot on, Geoff. Especially if (like me) you were lucky enough to see it for the first time in a real cinema on a massive screen with a multi-track surround sound system. You could swear you actually felt the Star Destroyer rumbling close overhead. One of *the* top cinema-going moments of my life so far, no question.

And as such, I'm aware that (subjectively) the PT has offered no equivalent level of excitement for me. Is it a fair expectation that it should? Hell yes! This is Star Wars!! George Lucas is a wizard! Sure he has some annoying habits where his films are concerned, and gets a bit precious about them, but he's still the guy who gave us the Star Destroyer.

And it's why I have a certain disregard for CGI. It's true that it makes a lot of visual spectacle available that couldn't otherwise be created these days, but it's a bit impoverished still, for all that. CGI still can't give us that same visceral Star Destroyer response. It might have tons of "wow!", but it's got no "ffffflippin' heck!".

[octagon]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

And as such, I'm aware that (subjectively) the PT has offered no equivalent level of excitement for me. Is it a fair expectation that it should? Hell yes!

I want to agree with that but I don't know...

I turned fifteen that summer and that Star Destroyer was a watershed 'I don't think we're in Kansas anymore' moment. It was literally jaw-dropping.

But I can't help but wonder if it would have been slightly less so if I had seen 2001 in a theater (instead of on broadcast television). I also can't help but wonder if we only have so many of those watershed moments in us. People like to say 'they don't make 'em like they used to' but I think part of that has a lot to do with the fact that the more often one is awed the higher that 'awe' bar gets.

It's not that people get jaded, exactly but part of the awe in that Star Destroyer shot was due to the fact that up to that point in my life I had never had a movie hit me quite like that. The fact that a movie could surprise me and transport me that way was in and of itself surprising.

That's no longer the case and it's really nobody's fault. It's just how it goes.

Movies can obviously still make my pulse race but after fifty years of watching them it's harder and harder to be surprised by them.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

CGI still can't give us that same visceral Star Destroyer response. It might have tons of "wow!", but it's got no "ffffflippin' heck!".

Just fyi, my 15 year old self did in fact have the latter response to a great many things in Episode I back in good 'ole 1999. To say that the movie was unlike anything I'd ever seen before would be an understatement.

Unfortunately, by the time Episode II came around, my CGI cynicism had started to set in (probably due in part to my awe at some of the more grounded effects work done in Fellowship of the Ring the year before). So it didn't have the same effect on me. But I still have those memories of having my jaw drop in astonishment during the first film. It may be the most loathed of the SW films, but it still stands as one of my most memorable experiences in the theater.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Just fyi, my 15 year old self did in fact have the latter response to a great many things in Episode I back in good 'ole 1999. To say that the movie was unlike anything I'd ever seen before would be an understatement.

It had its moments. The reveal of the underwater city wasn't 'Star Destroyer good' for me but it was in that same 'whoa, when did they learn this trick' ballpark.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by octagon

It had its moments. The reveal of the underwater city wasn't 'Star Destroyer good' for me but it was in that same 'whoa, when did they learn this trick' ballpark.

Yeah, but you just said you turned 15 when Star Wars ('77) was released. What that was for you is what 15 year old me got with Episode I.

I wouldn't expect you to have the same reaction as I did. Two different generations coming at something with completely different cinematic experiences.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Yeah, but you just said you turned 15 when Star Wars ('77) was released. What that was for you is what 15 year old me got with Episode I.

I wouldn't expect you to have the same reaction as I did. Two different generations coming at something with completely different cinematic experiences.

I was agreeing that EP I (and by extension CGI generally) had its "ffffflippin' heck!" moments. My reaction (to at least a couple things, anyway) was very similar to yours.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by octagon

Movies can obviously still make my pulse race but after fifty years of watching them it's harder and harder to be surprised by them.

Spot on. You've got about 25 years of movie watching on me, but 25 years is still long enough to have witnessed all the major spectacles that movie-making has up its sleeve.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by octagon

I was agreeing that EP I (and by extension CGI generally) had its "ffffflippin' heck!" moments. My reaction (to at least a couple things, anyway) was very similar to yours.

Oops, sorry. I misinterpreted your reply.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by octagon

It had its moments. The reveal of the underwater city wasn't 'Star Destroyer good' for me but it was in that same 'whoa, when did they learn this trick' ballpark.

Nothing visually floored me when I saw Episode I.

The last film that visually shocked me was Gravity, which looked so convincing most of the time that it looked like it was actually shot in space. Before that was The Matrix, then before that was Jurassic Park.

CGI does not impress me simply because its limitless. It requires no trickery, no innovation, no special artistry, and for a lot of filmmakers it is applied without any control at all.

This is one of the reasons I loved The Edge of Tomorrow. Almost no over-the-top, overstuffed CGI masterb***y fests. The emphasis was on the story and the characters, with the VFX in support of them.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by octagon

It had its moments. The reveal of the underwater city wasn't 'Star Destroyer good' for me but it was in that same 'whoa, when did they learn this trick' ballpark.

And then when Boss Nass opened his mouth, I was like "Whoa, how the heck do these guys have a working underwater city? Clearly the current inhabitants didn't build it.."

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by svenge

And then when Boss Nass opened his mouth, I was like "Whoa, how the heck do these guys have a working underwater city? Clearly the current inhabitants didn't build it.."

You should watch the Red Letter reviews. They're hilarious (elvis has them in his sig).

[svenge]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

You should watch the Red Letter reviews. They're hilarious (elvis has them in his sig).

I've watched them. Honestly, they would've been more effective without the entire deranged narrator bit.

[thebard]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Nothing visually floored me when I saw Episode I.

The last film that visually shocked me was Gravity, which looked so convincing most of the time that it looked like it was actually shot in space. Before that was The Matrix, then before that was Jurassic Park.

CGI does not impress me simply because its limitless. It requires no trickery, no innovation, no special artistry, and for a lot of filmmakers it is applied without any control at all.

This is one of the reasons I loved The Edge of Tomorrow. Almost no over-the-top, overstuffed CGI masterb***y fests. The emphasis was on the story and the characters, with the VFX in support of them.

I was just about to post something very similar!

Maybe I'm more impressionable than some here... or less cynical.
But movies still impress me on occasion. Gravity was probably the most recent that left me with that "event film" feeling... you know, where you've maybe seen a trailer or a billboard, but it's mostly word-of-mouth "you've got to see this on the big screen" type stuff. And the opening sequence immersed me immediately, like the Star Destroyer opening. Before that probably Jurassic Park.

Point is... cinema still has some tricks up its sleeve, I think.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Was anybody else here actually a kid when Episode I came out? Seems like many of you guys were already fairly cynical about CGI VFX by the time it came out.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

You should watch the Red Letter reviews. They're hilarious (elvis has them in his sig).

There funny but they are spot on. Even Roger Ebert said they were great.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by Elvis

I would pay 300.00

I paid $250. In 1993 dollars.

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Was anybody else here actually a kid when Episode I came out? Seems like many of you guys were already fairly cynical about CGI VFX by the time it came out.

I was 9 when it came out. Honestly I just remember finding it boring more than anything else. I remember the Podrace being cool and loving the final battle with Darth Maul.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Aragorn the Elfstone

Was anybody else here actually a kid when Episode I came out? Seems like many of you guys were already fairly cynical about CGI VFX by the time it came out.

I'm not cynical about CGI. When applied with restraint, it can be awesome. The problem is it rarely is.

I just said how Gravity visually impressed me, and 95% of that film is CGI.

The reason practical FX were better isn't because they look good, it's because it limited the filmmakers and forced them to solve storytelling problems creatively in as efficient a manner as they could. Thus, they had to get the most bang for their buck.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

I'm not cynical about CGI. When applied with restraint, it can be awesome. The problem is it rarely is.

I just said how Gravity visually impressed me, and 95% of that film is CGI.

The reason practical FX were better isn't because they look good, it's because it limited the filmmakers and forced them to solve storytelling problems creatively in as efficient a manner as they could. Thus, they had to get the most bang for their buck.

Didn't Nora Desmond say the same thing about talkies?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

I paid $250. In 1993 dollars.

So did I.