Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[jd_from_da_80s]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Reading this thread yesterday made me want to watch one of the movies. Just my opinion but don't see what anyone has to complain about because it sure looked & sounded great to me From my magical PJ

Revenge of the Sith

[Show spoiler]

I don't know if I'm more impressed with your display or your camera.

[Monkey_Boy]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

SHOCKER AHEAD: She is one of those who prefers puppets, and models over CGI, and always said that CGI looked fake...

This is sumpthin' that has always bugged me. Models and puppets look fake as well. Why do people have such a problem with CGI? It's just another tool that filmmakers use to tell their story. There was a poster pages and pages ago that stated that he didn't care for the battle at the end of "TPM" because the gungans and droids were CG, and therefore not real, so he couldn't feel any emotion for what was going on. I ask, did these people not feel any emotion during a classically animated film like "The Iron Giant"? Was "Toy Story" considered emotionless because it was 100% CG? People do understand that even when films have no CG they are still fake, right? The battles in "Glory" and "Saving Private Ryan" didn't have people actually getting their parts blown off and killed, so why feel anything for them? All this hatred for a simple tool to help tell a story makes no sense to me. Sets aren't real. Characters aren't real. Movies aren't real! I can understand when the CGI is incredibly terrible, like in "Lost in Space" or "Babylon 5", but even when it's done well, people still cry "foul!" Personally, I just sit back and let the filmmaker tell his/her story in the manner in which he/she thought best to. I don't distance myself from it if I see CGI because I've still enjoyed movies in the past where you could absolutely tell that the characters were puppets, or that the background was just a set or filmed on the backlot. I don't let "fake" get in the way because I recognize that it's just a movie, and that the whole thing is fake. All the hatred just seems so strange to me.

[klauswhereareyou]

I prefer Yoda from Empire, but there's no way they could've had that thing fight, even now in 2013. CGI Yoda looked way better then puppet Yoda from Phantom Menace, I'm not sure what the thought process was behind making him look so radically different from the OT puppet, but man it looked terrible.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

TPM and AOTC are fantastic films, and worlds better than any other those other fantasy action films made nowadays.

In fact, AOTC is many a lady's favorite, including my sister, who is really old school.

I love it to death also. It'll always remain the most unforgettable experience at the movies!!! Simply incredible!

SHOCKER AHEAD: She is one of those who prefers puppets, and models over CGI, and always said that CGI looked fake, but when we watched ROTS the other day, she said that Yoda looked better than the puppet, and that the acting was far improved as well.

She finally chose the CG Yoda over the puppet, and she is damn hard to please!

Yoda in ROTS is mindblowing!

They should really put that Yoda in AOTC, so that the prequels are consistent in that respect. They already updated the puppet of TPM with the ROTS Yoda, so they should do it all the way!
These are the things I don't understand George!

I love the acting of Yoda in ATOC, but the model is not nearly as good as the one in ROTS.

Some people are never happy with what they get they all look the same to me anyway

[Falaskan]

I have now figured out why so many ppl go gaga over Empire. I will admit it's the best Star Wars film, but at the same time, you'd be hard pressed to prove it's not the most boring SW movie at the same time.

[Booker Dewitt]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I prefer Yoda from Empire, but there's no way they could've had that thing fight, even now in 2013. CGI Yoda looked way better then puppet Yoda from Phantom Menace, I'm not sure what the thought process was behind making him look so radically different from the OT puppet, but man it looked terrible.

Remeber Yaddle...


Yeah, that was supposed to be a younger Yoda. They realized how crap it was and quickly made a puppet closer to the original Yoda.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I prefer Yoda from Empire, but there's no way they could've had that thing fight, even now in 2013. CGI Yoda looked way better then puppet Yoda from Phantom Menace, I'm not sure what the thought process was behind making him look so radically different from the OT puppet, but man it looked terrible.

Even with the decent CGI, I don't know if they should have had Yoda using a lightsaber....maybe just fighting with that blue electrical power (or whatever it is) would have worked better.

[VincentVinyl]

TPM and AOTC are fantastic films, and worlds better than any other those other fantasy action films made nowadays.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to me especially The Phantom Menace feels like a cheap SyFy flick or glorified saturday morning cartoon. I watched it once when it came out on VHS and hated it so much I never watched it again until the Blu-rays came out. I thought "Okay, maybe I will give this another chance. Might not be as bad as my memories with the right expectations".

Yet I hated it even more and had a hard time even watching it until the end.

It is just a very bad movie in my opinion. I mean when a movie accomplishes to make something deeply spiritial like the force a silly scientific phenomenon, that is quite something.

Attack of the clones was far better but still just a mediocre science fiction flick to me.

Revenge of the Sith is once again an improvement, but still I consider it quite average.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give Phantom Menace a 3, Attack of the Clones a 5 and Revenge of the Sith a 6,5.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Even with the decent CGI, I don't know if they should have had Yoda using a lightsaber....maybe just fighting with that blue electrical power (or whatever it is) would have worked better.

I agree, but since they had him fight, I'm glad it wasn't a puppet. Probably would've looked about as dumb as the deleted wampa footage from Empire.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Monkey_Boy

This is sumpthin' that has always bugged me. Models and puppets look fake as well. Why do people have such a problem with CGI? It's just another tool that filmmakers use to tell their story. There was a poster pages and pages ago that stated that he didn't care for the battle at the end of "TPM" because the gungans and droids were CG, and therefore not real, so he couldn't feel any emotion for what was going on. I ask, did these people not feel any emotion during a classically animated film like "The Iron Giant"? Was "Toy Story" considered emotionless because it was 100% CG? People do understand that even when films have no CG they are still fake, right? The battles in "Glory" and "Saving Private Ryan" didn't have people actually getting their parts blown off and killed, so why feel anything for them? All this hatred for a simple tool to help tell a story makes no sense to me. Sets aren't real. Characters aren't real. Movies aren't real! I can understand when the CGI is incredibly terrible, like in "Lost in Space" or "Babylon 5", but even when it's done well, people still cry "foul!" Personally, I just sit back and let the filmmaker tell his/her story in the manner in which he/she thought best to. I don't distance myself from it if I see CGI because I've still enjoyed movies in the past where you could absolutely tell that the characters were puppets, or that the background was just a set or filmed on the backlot. I don't let "fake" get in the way because I recognize that it's just a movie, and that the whole thing is fake. All the hatred just seems so strange to me.

I was thinking about the CGI vs. old-school effects the other night when I watched my Blu-ray of Ray Harryhausen's 20 Million Miles To Earth.



The above monster is one of the greatest sci-fi movie characters in cinema history. I feel as sorry as hell for him every time I watch the movie, and think about how it's unfair what happens to him.

I think that it all comes down to a character's eyes in a film, whether that character is CGI, puppet, or real. Filmmakers have realized in recent years that, if you make a CGI character's eyes look realistic, then viewers will ultimately empathize with that character regardless of whether or not the character looks realistic overall. This is why the characters in The Polar Express creep us out, because, although they are fairly realistic-looking, the eyes are obviously fake. By contrast, we have a lot more sympathy for Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes or for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, because the eyes make the characters.

Herein lies the problem with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The CGI-animated creatures look cartoonishly creepy because the filmmakers had not learned to place emphasis on the eyes of the characters. The monster in 20 Million Miles To Earth is more realistic-looking and draws our sympathy on a human level, although the stop-motion effects are crude.
The same with King Kong (1933) or with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. The eyes look real, so the characters seem real.

[Monkey_Boy]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I think that it all comes down to a character's eyes in a film, whether that character is CGI, puppet, or real. Filmmakers have realized in recent years that, if you make a CGI character's eyes look realistic, then viewers will ultimately empathize with that character regardless of whether or not the character looks realistic overall. This is why the characters in The Polar Express creep us out, because, although they are fairly realistic-looking, the eyes are obviously fake. By contrast, we have a lot more sympathy for Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes or for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, because the eyes make the characters.

Herein lies the problem with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The CGI-animated creatures look cartoonishly creepy because the filmmakers had not learned to place emphasis on the eyes of the characters. The monster in 20 Million Miles To Earth is more realistic-looking and draws our sympathy on a human level, although the stop-motion effects are crude.
The same with King Kong (1933) or with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. The eyes look real, so the characters seem real.

I do agree with everything you just said. Except the eyes of the creatures in "TPM" don't look dead like they did in "The Polar Express". Jar Jar, no matter how annoying people thought he was/is, had a sparkle in his eyes. He definitely showed emotion, even if they were limited by what they could do at the time. Lucas took a BIG step in special effects by introducing the world to completely computer-generated characters among live actors. Does it look as good as Gollum? Of course not, because they were the first to do it, but for its time it was a great looking effect and in my eyes still holds up today.

I personally don't think that it's fair to judge a film as crappy just because it has CG characters. Especially if it's as old as "TPM" is. They are an evolution of what Harryhausen was originally doing: bringing creatures to life in a new and interesting way. And as the years pass, they are getting better at it, e.g. Gollum. Still, people complain when there's even a possibility of the use of CGI (like in the "Gremlins" remake thread) before they even see what the effects are going to look like. Like I typed, the hatred towards it just seems strange to me.

I do appreciate your response The Great Owl. If there were a "LIKE" feature on this site, I'd be clicking it like a mug on your post!

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Now that Abrams is doing the new Star Wars movie, it kind of makes me wonder if it will be shot on film since all of his movies have been, even the newest Trek coming out this year.

I hope so, because I really like the look of fine-grain film, especially 70mm (duh!), but digital can bear fantastic results too-->ROTS

As long as it's not shot in 48 or 60fps, I am good.

Originally Posted by joliefan

I am not buying any SW movies unless they give me the unalterd Star Wars Trilogy 77-83

Originally Posted by joliefan

Some people are never happy with what they get they all look the same to me anyway

Well, how can you judge that, if you haven't seen the BDs yet?

Yoda in AOTC doesn't have the translucency nor the fine detail of the ROTS model. Also, the robe doesn't have the fuss balls yet.

The ROTS is a huge improvement. The AOTC Yoda was pretty great, but it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance against the ROTS one.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I was thinking about the CGI vs. old-school effects the other night when I watched my Blu-ray of Ray Harryhausen's 20 Million Miles To Earth.



The above monster is one of the greatest sci-fi movie characters in cinema history. I feel as sorry as hell for him every time I watch the movie, and think about how it's unfair what happens to him.

I think that it all comes down to a character's eyes in a film, whether that character is CGI, puppet, or real. Filmmakers have realized in recent years that, if you make a CGI character's eyes look realistic, then viewers will ultimately empathize with that character regardless of whether or not the character looks realistic overall. This is why the characters in The Polar Express creep us out, because, although they are fairly realistic-looking, the eyes are obviously fake. By contrast, we have a lot more sympathy for Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes or for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, because the eyes make the characters.

Herein lies the problem with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The CGI-animated creatures look cartoonishly creepy because the filmmakers had not learned to place emphasis on the eyes of the characters. The monster in 20 Million Miles To Earth is more realistic-looking and draws our sympathy on a human level, although the stop-motion effects are crude.
The same with King Kong (1933) or with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. The eyes look real, so the characters seem real.

Are you seriously saying the eyes of the monster in 20 Million Miles from the Earth were more real than Jar Jar or Watto's?

Come on!

If this "James Cameron" theory were true, how come pretty much all hand-drawn or CG animated movies such as Pixar's Finding Nemo characters make people emote???

There is almost no detail in those eyes, which is a thing that always bothers me (ILM's Rango is the only one that has superbly detailed eyes), yet the CGI characters' eyes in the prequels have lots of detail, and look very, very real.
Rob Coleman even used the scanning, sth. people naturally and subconsciously do, in the CGI characters. Watch Watto in AOTC, for instance.

It's about the characters, or rather a combination of all those elements.

The character has to be engaging enough for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to look sufficiently real for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to be reasonably well integrated for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to interact with his/her/its environment to a certain extent for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to have believable behavior in body motion, eye movement etc..

It's very complex, and if just one thing is off enough to bother you, it's over.

But most of all, if you don't want to believe in it, you won't.

The problem with the CG characters in TPM it the BD transfer.

They often look flat and DNRd, as do the live action characters, but it's enough so we think they look fake.

Check out Watto in AOTC, and tell me it looks the same as in TPM.

He looks 100% real in AOTC, while in TPM, you have to squint.

It truly pains me to see TPM in this state.
This film hasn't looked great since its theatrical release, where I am sure it could look breathtaking, because that's what I remember it looking in the theater, and I saw it 15 times there.

Also, during the podrace sequence, and some other shots, but it's most noticeable during the podrace, there are some shots that were done for the DVD release, and they are obviously upscaled in comparison to the feature proper. They look very soft.
They should do these again.

The CG characters in ROTJ look better than many of the shots in TPM, and that is due to the DNR!

Wise a$$ signing out.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Are you seriously saying the eyes of the monster in 20 Million Miles from the Earth were more real than Jar Jar or Watto's?

Come on!

If this "James Cameron" theory were true, how come pretty much all hand-drawn or CG animated movies such as Pixar's Finding Nemo characters make people emote???

There is almost no detail in those eyes, which is a thing that always bothers me (ILM's Rango is the only one that has superbly detailed eyes), yet the CGI characters' eyes in the prequels have lots of detail, and look very, very real.
Rob Coleman even used the scanning, sth. people naturally and subconsciously do, in the CGI characters. Watch Watto in AOTC, for instance.

It's about the characters, or rather a combination of all those elements.

The character has to be engaging enough for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to look sufficiently real for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to be reasonably well integrated for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to interact with his/her/its environment to a certain extent for you to invest your emotions in it.

The character has to have believable behavior in body motion, eye movement etc..

It's very complex, and if just one thing is off enough to bother you, it's over.

But most of all, if you don't want to believe in it, you won't.

The problem with the CG characters in TPM it the BD transfer.

They often look flat and DNRd, as do the live action characters, but it's enough so we think they look fake.

Check out Watto in AOTC, and tell me it looks the same as in TPM.

He looks 100% real in AOTC, while in TPM, you have to squint.

It truly pains me to see TPM in this state.
This film hasn't looked great since its theatrical release, where I am sure it could look breathtaking, because that's what I remember it looking in the theater, and I saw it 15 times there.

Also, during the podrace sequence, and some other shots, but it's most noticeable during the podrace, there are some shots that were done for the DVD release, and they are obviously upscaled in comparison to the feature proper. They look very soft.
They should do these again.

The CG characters in ROTJ look better than many of the shots in TPM, and that is due to the DNR!

Wise a$$ signing out.

Ever see Grave of the Fireflies? Those anime drawings don't look real, the characters don't move realistically, yet it is often cited as the most emotionally devastating animated film ever made. The human mind is a marvelous thing, and freely associates an unreal image with a real entity in the imagination. Bambi as a fawn looks more like a calf than a deer, with that big giant head, but because he behaves like a deer, we make the leap. Same thing with the kids in Fireflies.

There are no hard and fast rules here. It all comes down to writing, acting, and execution. The rest is up to the viewer.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Are you seriously saying the eyes of the monster in 20 Million Miles from the Earth were more real than Jar Jar or Watto's?

I sure am.

Well, I'll concede that Watto was the most sympathetic character in The Phantom Menace, because his eyes gave him more character.
Jar Jar? Not so much.

The improvements were drastically noticeable in Revenge of the Sith. There's a real hostility in the eyes of General Grievous, and that gives him an added character.

Watch this YouTube parody... The Assassination of Yogi Bear by the Coward Booboo

The Assassination of Yogi Bear by the Coward Booboo

Look at how much emotion is conveyed through the eyes of those CGI characters. Yogi and Booboo do not look real otherwise, but the eyes make them just as real than the human counterparts in the original movie.

[bsweetness]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I sure am.

Well, I'll concede that Watto was the most sympathetic character in The Phantom Menace, because his eyes gave him more character.
Jar Jar? Not so much.

The improvements were drastically noticeable in Revenge of the Sith. There's a real hostility in the eyes of General Grievous, and that gives him an added character.

But there's a big difference between the eyes adding sympathy, hostility, or any other emotion and just simply looking more real. The eyes of the monster in 20 Million Miles to Earth might make you feel a certain way about it versus how you feel about the other characters you mentioned, but that's very different from having a more realistic appearance.

Sofia Coppola's eyes in The Godfather, Part III are glazed over and portray virtually nothing throughout the entire movie, but that doesn't mean they look less real than Al Pacino's or Andy Garcia's, who both portray a wide range of emotions through their eyes in the same film, or even when compared to the monster in 20 Million Miles to Earth.

So, I think you're talking about something different - portraying emotions or character through the eyes - versus the eyes actually looking more or less real in a literal sense.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Ever see Grave of the Fireflies? Those anime drawings don't look real, the characters don't move realistically, yet it is often cited as the most emotionally devastating animated film ever made. The human mind is a marvelous thing, and freely associates an unreal image with a real entity in the imagination. Bambi as a fawn looks more like a calf than a deer, with that big giant head, but because he behaves like a deer, we make the leap. Same thing with the kids in Fireflies.

There are no hard and fast rules here. It all comes down to writing, acting, and execution. The rest is up to the viewer.

I didn't say anything that contradicted your opinion stated here.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I sure am.

Well, I'll concede that Watto was the most sympathetic character in The Phantom Menace, because his eyes gave him more character.
Jar Jar? Not so much.

The improvements were drastically noticeable in Revenge of the Sith. There's a real hostility in the eyes of General Grievous, and that gives him an added character.

Watch this YouTube parody... The Assassination of Yogi Bear by the Coward Booboo
The Assassination of Yogi Bear by the Coward Booboo

Look at how much emotion is conveyed through the eyes of those CGI characters. Yogi and Booboo do not look real otherwise, but the eyes make them just as real than the human counterparts in the original movie.

I am sorry, but there is way too much blinking going on in the two characters for my taste.
It's the subject matter, that makes it impactful, but I think we can agree, that it is a combination of things, that makes it work for us.

The music, editing, angles, everything comes into play.

I didn't believe in those characters (yogi bear), but as a compassionate, nature/animal lover, I was sad. For me it has little to do with the actual characters on screen though. They could be lego or clay for all I care.

I think one of the main reasons the creatures from 20 Million Miles From Earth or Yogi move us, is because we no it's wrong to kill the.

It speaks to our natural empathy.
That's one of the factors anyways. This is my theory. It has little to do with realistic eyes.
It's an interesting subject matter.

[Thomas Guycott]

Not to interrupt the puppet discussion, but-

Disney and Lucasfilm cancel remaining Star Wars 3D reissues to concentrate on Sequel Trilogy development

EXCLUSIVE: No More ‘Star Wars’ 3D Prequel Releases; Lucasfilm Passes To Focus On New Trilogy

By NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief | Monday January 28, 2013 @ 12:25pm PST

EXCLUSIVE: I learned of this decision just now from Lucasfilm‘s promotional partners who are telling me the studio now owned by Disney wants to focus only on “rebooting the franchise” with three new Star Wars films. This surprising decision follows the underwhelming box office performance of Episode I: The Phantom Menace re-released in 3D in February 2012. It debuted to only $23M domestically but maybe even more importantly hardcore fans felt it was yet another craven cash grab by George Lucas. Back in September 2010, Lucasfilm and then-distributor Fox announced that all 6 films in the Star Wars franchise would be converted to 3D. Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (first released on May 16, 2002) was to hit theaters in 3D on September 20th, 2013, while Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith (first released on May 19, 2005) was to play in 3D on October 11, 2013. This news comes just days after Disney confirmed that J.J. Abrams will direct the new Star Wars: Episode VII scheduled to be released in 2015. It’s the first new Star Wars movie since 2005. Michael Arndt is writing the script. Disney bought Lucasfilm in October 2012 for $4 billion, with the Star Wars franchise obviously the jewel in the crown. At the time, Disney CEO Bob Iger said three more Star Wars films were in the pipeline.

[Monkey_Boy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Not to interrupt the puppet discussion, but-

Disney and Lucasfilm cancel remaining Star Wars 3D reissues to concentrate on Sequel Trilogy development

Huh? Didn't it end up making MORE than that though? Whatta crock!

[The Apocalypse]

So wait, we aren't gonna be seeing II & III in 3D?

[bsweetness]

Originally Posted by The Apocalypse

So wait, we aren't gonna be seeing II & III in 3D?

From the sound of things, we won't be seeing any more of them released in 3D for the foreseeable future.