Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by rockin

Err wtf ridiculous? It's my opinion and I can like a movie better for whatever reason I like - that's my entitlement of having my own opinion - I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. At least I have had the decency to explain my reasons for preferring the TPM than simply saying the others suck, like some people do.

And you clearly didn't read what I said. I was stating that I preferred TPM more not simply because it has more real locations, but because it felt more like the old Star Wars movies due to a number of different things.

Well, I'm sorry but you clearly stated you preferred TPM because of those things I criticized you for. Explaining your opinion is always good (many people don't do that anymore) but frankly, and this is me giving my opinion, I thought the reasons why you thought TPM is superior to the other two aren't very good reasons. Again, in my opinion. It's like saying you prefer TPM to Return of the Jedi, simply because they went to other countries, instead of only shooting in America.

[Cook]

Truth is early digital filmaking and green screen flattens the depth of the image you are capturing. There are enough director and cinematographers statements to back this up. Whatever your oppinions of any of these films, it makes no difference. It is what it is. When you create an image or background in a computer it is a 2d image with false depth created inside the computer. It like the "valley" effect in films like beowulf. You know something is off, but can't put your finger on it. Some notice it more than others. What I have noticed in excess in this thread is some people can't seperate a technical discussion about cameras and filming styles from critiques of the film. Saying you prefer one style of filmaking over another has nothing to do with what you think of the story or the film itself. I hate the 3D in Avatar and most of the grading work, but I like the film. See what I did there? I said I hated a technical aspect of a film I love. Why can't Star Wars fans understand this concept?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Cook

Truth is early digital filmaking and green screen flattens the depth of the image you are capturing. There are enough director and cinematographers statements to back this up. Whatever your oppinions of any of these films, it makes no difference. It is what it is. When you create an image or background in a computer it is a 2d image with false depth created inside the computer. It like the "valley" effect in films like beowulf. You know something is off, but can't put your finger on it. Some notice it more than others. What I have noticed in excess in this thread is some people can't seperate a technical discussion about cameras and filming styles from critiques of the film. Saying you prefer one style of filmaking over another has nothing to do with what you think of the story or the film itself. I hate the 3D in Avatar and most of the grading work, but I like the film. See what I did there? I said I hated a technical aspect of a film I love. Why can't Star Wars fans understand this concept?

What concept? That *you* think certain things look flat?

How about Avatar on Blu-ray? Looks pretty damned impressive on a top of the line 2-D set.

When you see them in Digital Cinema and at home in HD (not DVD, *HD*) Episodes II & III take on a 3-D look that makes the other "traditional" films of the series look flat in comparison.

[JamesKurtovich]

Although I'm pretty sure you can go see Hoth, Endor, and Tatooine whenever you want. The other locations in the OT were built specifically for the movie. Build it up, film, tear it down, then move on.

Peter Jackson made the right decision when he decided to build actual sets rather than rely on computers as Lucas did with Star Wars. The result was an organic and real Middle-Earth which made for an awesome LOTR trilogy.

Obviously a place like Coruscant would require the green screen, but there are funny moments spread throughout the PT trilogy that make you go, "lol wut" Just look at when a clone trooper takes his helmet off and suddenly becomes a floating head. It reminded me of Spy Kids 3-D.

[Geoff D]

Jackson used a fair few miniature sets, as did Lucas. And Jackson used a shitload of CG too (a lot of which is starting to look very dated indeed IMO). The difference is that LOTR isn't set on some fantastical planet in the far flung reaches of space, but rather (middle) Earth, so most of the stuff in LOTR has a certain grounded reality to it (obvious fantasy elements aside).

But the SW prequels were designed with entirely brand new worlds in mind, worlds which scream 'THIS AIN'T REAL, SUCKA!' because we've never seen garden planets or ash planets or city planets or whatever before. It takes a certain amount of imagination to really buy into the environs of the Star Wars prequels, because you've got to look past the 'unreality' of it and just go along for the ride.

There's no defending the CG clonetroopers though. IMO they look fantastic when fully armoured, but as soon as a helmet comes off the illusion is cruelly shattered.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

What concept? That *you* think certain things look flat?

How about Avatar on Blu-ray? Looks pretty damned impressive on a top of the line 2-D set.

When you see them in Digital Cinema and at home in HD (not DVD, *HD*) Episodes II & III take on a 3-D look that makes the other "traditional" films of the series look flat in comparison.

Nope the concept that digital backgrounds flatten images. Just to name two directors that share this idea: Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan. I watched AOTC and ROTS in theaters and HD many times. They both show a lack of depth of field that I notice. Like I said this isn't an attack on these films it is an observation. I honostly can not fathom why someone would defend the excessive use of green screen and purely digital enviornments instead of real sets anyways. I understand defending a film, but real sets for me always win over purely digital sets. Heck, even a real set with a digital extention works. But 100% digital enviroments stand out. The Kamino hallway when you look at it you can tell it is 98% digital, and the interior shot of the jedi temple when Mace, Obi-Wan, and yoda are talking is the worst offender of all. The Kamino set when Obi-an is walking through the halls and looking out the windows on the facility could have been built and used digital set extensions for the shots of the facility through the windows. I'm just old fashioned in some ways.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Cook

Like I said this isn't an attack on these films it is an observation. I honostly can not fathom why someone would defend the excessive use of green screen and purely digital enviornments instead of real sets anyways.

Cost.

Waste.

I'd take some electricity and CPU power than wasting tons of wood/paint/plastic for sets that will never be used again.

In any case a lot of the sets weren't digital but *miniatures*. The Jedi training area (with Yoda & the kids) and the Geonosian arena are just 2 examples.

[Beast]

Exactly. And I don't see how CGI backgrounds could be any flatter than matte paintigs.

At least you never heard people endlessly complain about those. Why? Most predate the internet.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Exactly. And I don't see how CGI backgrounds could be any flatter than matte paintigs.

At least you never heard people endlessly complain about those. Why? Most predate the internet.

It's one thing when you use traditional or digital matte paintings to merely extend a background here and there, but it's another thing entirely when you shoot almost everything against bluescreen, have just about every set and location be entirely digital and try to pass it off as a real environment.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Cost.

Waste.

I'd take some electricity and CPU power than wasting tons of wood/paint/plastic for sets that will never be used again.
In any case a lot of the sets weren't digital but *miniatures*. The Jedi training area (with Yoda & the kids) and the Geonosian arena are just 2 examples.

Originally Posted by Beast

Exactly. And I don't see how CGI backgrounds could be any flatter than matte paintigs.

At least you never heard people endlessly complain about those. Why? Most predate the internet.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Cost.

Waste.

I'd take some electricity and CPU power than wasting tons of wood/paint/plastic for sets that will never be used again.

In any case a lot of the sets weren't digital but *miniatures*. The Jedi training area (with Yoda & the kids) and the Geonosian arena are just 2 examples.

If it was more cost effective to do all digital sets over physical then every studio would only be doing digital. Last I recall the 2nd highest grossing film of all time built half of an entire ship as a set, and still made a larger profit than either Episode 2 or 3. And if you look at the top 10 highest grossing films they all used sets, and it didn't seem to cut in on there costs. It takes months to construct digital sets and its a 7 day a week job. Physical sets go up in weeks. Seems to me physical is cheaper. And you ask almost any actor, and they will all say they prefer real sets. It gives them more to work with. Another example is the Harry Potter films. Highest grossing film franchise, and yet they built the whole great hall set, and they even used real flagstone. And when that set is brought up the actors make a note of how much they they appreciate the attention to details and the use of real stone because its real and puts them in the location. Of course, most british actors are stage actors, and appreciate quality over quantity.

I understand defendng something you love, but blind devotion to anything and all its aspects is bordering on religious devotion. Nothing is perfect. Star Wars like anything else in film has problems. Its just when you point out Star Wars' problems your considered a heretic, and should be burned at the stake.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Cook

If it was more cost effective to do all digital sets over physical then every studio would only be doing digital. Last I recall the 2nd highest grossing film of all time built half of an entire ship as a set, and still made a larger profit than either Episode 2 or 3. And if you look at the top 10 highest grossing films they all used sets, and it didn't seem to cut in on there costs. It takes months to construct digital sets and its a 7 day a week job. Physical sets go up in weeks. Seems to me physical is cheaper. And you ask almost any actor, and they will all say they prefer real sets. It gives them more to work with. Another example is the Harry Potter films. Highest grossing film franchise, and yet they built the whole great hall set, and they even used real flagstone. And when that set is brought up the actors make a note of how much they they appreciate the attention to details and the use of real stone because its real and puts them in the location. Of course, most british actors are stage actors, and appreciate quality over quantity.

The actors do benefit. Sometimes in the PT (AOTC an ROTS especially) it's obvious that they're unaware of what's happening around them.

LOTR and Harry Potter are good examples of what can happen when you use real locations and use the fake stuff to complement and enhance the setting. There's depth and realism. It actually looks like a place that could exist somewhere. Sure, a lot of the effects are dated (inevitable) but it's not 90% of the movie.

Obviously science fiction movies require a lot of special effects, but why did Lucas decide to use so much? Certain things that were made digital could have been so much better had they put in the effort to make an actual thing... One item that comes to me are the clone troopers. As good as they look, was there even a single uniform made for those guys? I consider a scene where the Emperor attempts to murder Yoda pretty important and yet the only real characters there are the Wookies. It looked like a good cut scene from a video game but it lacked the drama that a scene like that would normally have in any other movie.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Cook

If it was more cost effective to do all digital sets over physical then every studio would only be doing digital. Last I recall the 2nd highest grossing film of all time built half of an entire ship as a set, and still made a larger profit than either Episode 2 or 3.

You point? The costliest bombs like Cutthroad Island used real ship sets too...and those ships actually sailed. Titanic didn't move from its berth in Baja California. How did it look like it sailed? A DIGITAL MODEL, digitally inserted backgrounds, etc.

Once marketing costs are factored in (just how many toys & video games did Titanic sell anyway?) the SW franchise made more...MUCH more.

I don't see a 500 page thread on this site devoted to Titanic either.

You can also bet that since techology has caught up if Cameron were making Titanic today it would be in 3-D and most of the ship would be digital.

[rockin]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Well, I'm sorry but you clearly stated you preferred TPM because of those things I criticized you for. Explaining your opinion is always good (many people don't do that anymore) but frankly, and this is me giving my opinion, I thought the reasons why you thought TPM is superior to the other two aren't very good reasons. Again, in my opinion. It's like saying you prefer TPM to Return of the Jedi, simply because they went to other countries, instead of only shooting in America.

It's funny people like you come out to dismiss any claim against the prequels. I have no real problem with them, I just prefer the look and feel of the first FOUR movies made. AOTC and ROTS just look too clean and digital for me, it's no biggie. There are parts of AOTC and ROTS I like, some parts that look truly epic actually but the overall look and feel of them just doesn't do it for me, that's just my opinion.

But you have ignored/overlooked my other reasons for liking TPM over the other prequels. I also stated that I liked it more because it was shot on film and it had semi decent villain.

Those who can't accept my opinion then just ignore it. No point trying to pick apart my opinion because it doesn't conform with yours - nobody is the same, but as I said at least I have explained the reasons for my opinion. I don't honestly see what the big deal is over someone preferring certain things within a movie over others.

And the reason I called you out on your opinion, was because you declared that I was basing my whole opinion on just one aspect - the locations which you deemed 'ridiculous'.

But anyway, like everywhere Star Wars related it seems, people seem to be ridiculously hostile, well on the net anyway.. quite sad..

[Beast]

The internet has turned everyone into an armchair director/movie critic. We seem to have lost the ability to just enjoy a movie.

Makes me think that if it had been around when the original King Kong was released, the movie wouldn't be considered a classic. Because it would have been ripped to shreds on the internet by people shouting that the stop motion effect wasn't perfect.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Beast

The internet has turned everyone into an armchair director/movie critique. We seem to have lost the ability to just enjoy a movie.

Makes me think that if it had been around when the original King Kong was released, the movie wouldn't be considered a classic. Because it would have been ripped to shreds on the internet by people shouting that the stop motion effect wasn't perfect.

I am with you. It's amazing the numbers of expert you can find on the Internet who just know how to make much better movies then everyone in Hollywood

[chip75]

I urge anyone who wants to know more about the sets of the OT and the PT to read Creating the Worlds of Star Wars 365 Days by John Knoll. Its a great book and comes with a CD with 360degree images on the disc.

Beast if the internet was around when King Kong was released SFX would probably have moved on from stop-motion. Technology seems to progress together whether it's automobiles, SFX or computer technology. I get what you're saying though. Although I've always thought it would be cool to take back Aliens or Jurassic Park and show them to an innocent 30's audience....

[Beast]

Heh. If people were fainting during Frankenstein, I'm sure Aliens would kill people.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Beast

Heh. If people were fainting during Frankenstein, I'm sure Aliens would kill people.

That's basically my main ambition in life.... to take a classic movie from my era back in time and erase someone from history....

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by Beast

The internet has turned everyone into an armchair director/movie critique. We seem to have lost the ability to just enjoy a movie.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am with you. It's amazing the numbers of expert you can find on the Internet who just know how to make much better movies then everyone in Hollywood