Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

However I still think the prequels have bad CG, because it's way too prevalent for how early it was in the technology's life, and is used for really stupid stuff it shouldn't have been used for, like the clone troopers.

They're CLONES. It's entirely more cost-effective to just use the same model multiple times than it is to find and hire hundreds of extras with the exact same height and build as Temuera Morrison.

[stvn1974]

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones - "Begun the Clone War has" (Imperial March) - YouTube

If you think this looks good you need an eye exam.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones - "Begun the Clone War has" (Imperial March) - YouTube

If you think this looks good you need an eye exam.

I rest my case.

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

Lies!
Computer screens, x-wing, death star plans, and Falcon Turret screens were computer images.

I can't tell if you are really joking, but those were all done by sfx artists without computers

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Even if you like CG you can say a movie's CG doesn't look great. I've come around a lot on CG over the years and genuinely enjoy it now when it's well done. However I still think the prequels have bad CG, because it's way too prevalent for how early it was in the technology's life, and is used for really stupid stuff it shouldn't have been used for, like the clone troopers.

In contrast the practical effects in the original trilogy were top of their game level, for the most part.

There are just as many poor opticals, mattes, and obvious miniatures in Episodes IV-VI too. Nostalgia goggles, people have.

[Neon Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

The colors might be like that because it looks like they scanned the 97 version:

https://twitter.com/StarWarsVisComp/...80269791485952

It had the more accurate colors.

The new scans are from the negative, which has no color timing at all and has the '97 changes spliced into them. These new scans had to be re-color timed entirely from scratch and as such, were timed to look closer to previous versions of the film.

The 2004 transfers were a rushed botch job with heavy black crush, colors pumped up to ridiculous levels to look more eye catching and weird shades of magenta and blue that were never in any previous version of the film. An entire generation has now come to know these films to look like this, so the new color timing may be as jarring to some as the '04 was to fans who were used to the way they looked before.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Neon Rabbit

The new scans are from the negative, which has no color timing at all and has the '97 changes spliced into them. These new scans had to be re-color timed entirely from scratch and as such, were timed to look closer to previous versions of the film.

The 2004 transfers were a rushed botch job with heavy black crush, colors pumped up to ridiculous levels to look more eye catching and weird shades of magenta and blue that were never in any previous version of the film. An entire generation has now come to know these films to look like this, so the new color timing may be as jarring to some as the '04 was to fans who were used to the way they looked before.

I watched the old VHS tapes and the THX VHS tapes of the original versions over and over again and they did not look like these new versions from a color standpoint. The carbonite chamber looks nothing like it's ever looked in previous versions.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

There are just as many poor opticals, mattes, and obvious miniatures in Episodes IV-VI too. Nostalgia goggles, people have.

Many of which can be vastly improved upon with digital re-compositing.

[Josep5349]

I strongly dislike some of the CG of the PT, though I think the worst for me is in ROTS around the 51 minute mark, Obi Wan is talking to some Clones. There’s a fairly close up shot at first which is ok but then it cuts back to a wider shot and the CG troopers just look terrible, they don’t have their helmets on and they literally look like cartoons.

[Galactus123]

Some of the cgi in the prequels hasn't aged well. This looks like Clone Wars cartoon:

[postmodel]

I remember even when I saw the midnight showing of AOTC the cgi just seemed off especially with the big reveal of all the clones lining up and getting on ships and all that. If there was ever a “special edition” of updating the PT with present day CGI I’d be all for it. Just the CGI, I’m not talking changing dialogue, edits, or adding scenes.

[Neon Rabbit]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I watched the old VHS tapes and the THX VHS tapes of the original versions over and over again and they did not look like these new versions from a color standpoint. The carbonite chamber looks nothing like it's ever looked in previous versions.

And the 2004 versions did? Even if those particular shots looked alright in 2004, there were so many other things that were completely off color wise.

The new scans may not be perfect, but they are far, far better than what we've had for the past several years.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

Lies!
Computer screens, x-wing, death star plans, and Falcon Turret screens were computer images.

Originally Posted by Stanis

I can't tell if you are really joking, but those were all done by sfx artists without computers

I don't know about the rest, but the Death Star plans featured during the Rebel briefing, including the full death star and trench run readouts, were done on a computer. The computer graphics were created by Larry Cuba at the Electronic Visualization Laboratory (EVL) (at the time known as the Circle Graphics Habitat) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It was created on a PDP-11/45.

Making of the Computer Graphics for Star Wars (Episode IV) - YouTube

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...23-column.html

Cuba had made about two minutes of animated Death Star, and about 45 seconds were used. He received a "computer animation and graphic display" screen credit, though no one else at UIC (or the school itself) was noted or thanked in the credits...

Attach him to the vector graphics monitor at his side — the very same monitor on which Cuba worked — give him enough TLC, and PDP-11/45 still loads the enormous disc of information Cuba created in 1976, then spits out the Empire's vector blueprints. Heminover plans to keep PDP-11/45 working forever. May the Force be with him on that.

The Chicago Tribune article has a nice video attached to it, you can see the Death Star graphic rotated in real time while running on the computer.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Neon Rabbit

And the 2004 versions did? Even if those particular shots looked alright in 2004, there were so many other things that were completely off color wise.

The new scans may not be perfect, but they are far, far better than what we've had for the past several years.

They looked like how I've known them to look, largely. The color timing seemed on point. Yeah, whatever there's some pink magenta stuff occasionally, but at least it's some color. These new transfers are devoid of vibrant color.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by postmodel

I remember even when I saw the midnight showing of AOTC the cgi just seemed off especially with the big reveal of all the clones lining up and getting on ships and all that. If there was ever a “special edition” of updating the PT with present day CGI I’d be all for it. Just the CGI, I’m not talking changing dialogue, edits, or adding scenes.

Yeah, some of it was noticeable at the midnight shows for me as well, but I just didn't care, because the whole effect was so cool, especially in 2002, because this kind of thing had never been seen before on screen! It was incredible. And it works for me, because the design, editing, and colors are so on point.

Also, you get amazing shots like the dust cloud after they shoot down the Trade Federation ship!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkwd...youtu.be&t=225

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

There are just as many poor opticals, mattes, and obvious miniatures in Episodes IV-VI too. Nostalgia goggles, people have.

It's not about how they look now. Old effects always stand out more decades later. My point is the original trilogy had amazing, top-tier effects for its time. Not just technically, as in how they were made, but also visually. They looked more realistic and impressive on screen than anything before them. In contrast the prequels looked terrible even when they came out. Well, 1 and 2 did, 3 looked better. It was too early to emphasize CG that much. I remember sitting in the theater in 1999 when the gungan/robot fight was happening and thinking it looked terrible.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

Some of the cgi in the prequels hasn't aged well. This looks like Clone Wars cartoon:

Exactly. Hence, my Star Destroyer comparison earlier - one from The Empire Strikes Back and the other from Attack of the Clones.

[bobbyh64]

Disney should remake the prequels with better writing, acting, CGI, practical effects, etc. Make them look like the ST.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by bobbyh64

Disney should remake the prequels with better writing, acting, CGI, practical effects, etc. Make them look like the ST.

We all know it's never going to happen.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It's not about how they look now. Old effects always stand out more decades later. My point is the original trilogy had amazing, top-tier effects for its time. Not just technically, as in how they were made, but also visually. They looked more realistic and impressive on screen than anything before them. In contrast the prequels looked terrible even when they came out. Well, 1 and 2 did, 3 looked better. It was too early to emphasize CG that much. I remember sitting in the theater in 1999 when the gungan/robot fight was happening and thinking it looked terrible.

Is there a possibility that you're not taking into account the kids who saw the CGI in 1999 and 2002 and 2005 and thought it was better than what came before in the same way that you thought 77-93 were better than Ray Harryhausen? And that maybe film is an evolving visual medium that requires you to evolve with it? I'm honestly not trying to be patronizing or pedantic. But, there's an artistry to every generation of effects. I think folks who grew up in the 70's and 80's- of which I'm a card carrying member on the wrong side of 40- need to come to modern movies the same way they go to silent movies and movies from the 30's and 40's and 50's and 60's. And so often I see that they don't visit those movies. Rather- and this is exactly the kind of blanket statement I'm trying to avoid. Alas.- They judge modern tech through the prism of the practical effects that they enjoyed when they grew up. And they miss the value of what's being done now. And make no mistake, on a narrative level, I'm fully in the Scorsese camp regarding modern movies, but I don't think the effects are the problem. George Lucas absolutely had a story to tell regardless of how folks took the execution of it.