Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[chip75]

Unfortunately I think someone had to take the hit with the CGI progress that the prequels strived for. It was certainly pioneering stuff for it's time, but there were always going to be bumps on the road. I don't think the prequels would have been possible if they hadn't done them the way they had (at least not financially), these days technology has advanced to such a point where CGI isn't really mentioned unless it's terrible, there's no wow factor (which is actually a good thing, as it's used to serve the story and not dazzle the audiences, which the prequels often attempted).

And at the end of the day even with their flaws, I'd much rather have their cinematic legacy than not have them be part of it.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's the second time you've trotted that out in reply to me and, once again, I'M AWARE OF THAT as I'm not talking about the production design when I say "shiny", e.g. it's the sterile, ersatz "digital" look of the computer-generated/assisted characters and ships and backgrounds, having precious little trace of any kind of grounded realism compared to the human elements that have been composited in.

Sorry, I forgot.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

Unfortunately I think someone had to take the hit with the CGI progress that the prequels strived for. It was certainly pioneering stuff for it's time, but there were always going to be bumps on the road. I don't think the prequels would have been possible if they hadn't done them the way they had (at least not financially), these days technology has advanced to such a point where CGI isn't really mentioned unless it's terrible, there's no wow factor (which is actually a good thing, as it's used to serve the story and not dazzle the audiences, which the prequels often attempted).

And at the end of the day even with their flaws, I'd much rather have their cinematic legacy than not have them be part of it.

Sure, I said the same thing very recently in another thread, that without pioneers like Lucas and ILM taking those steps and coming up with things that are taken for granted by filmmakers today e.g. split-screening different takes together then we wouldn't be as far as along with digital as we are. And yes, if ILM were doing all of that for an outside vendor then the VFX bill would've been ASTRONOMICAL, but Lucas cut himself a special deal on rates.

It's just a shame that something as momentous as the SW prequels had to be Lucas' proving ground, where story was most definitely sacrificed for spectacle in the name of advancing the technology - remember, Lucas himself ADMITTED that 60% of the meat of the prequel story was contained in Sith, with the others only getting 20% each, and it shows.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

I believe the PT is supposed to look that way. It takes place during a time of prosperity before the Galactic Empire ruled over everything. Their effect on the galaxy is why everything looks more old and used up in the OT.

While this explains why everything is shiny and new as opposed to the junk pile droids and ships of the OT, it's not really an explanation for dated CGI

I'm not knocking the PT. I love watching them. But any problems with the CG come from the fact that these were incredibly ambitious special effects films for their time. Even rival franchises of the same era (Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman, Matrix, etc.) didn't utilize digital effects the way the PT did. Whether that was a good decision for the films is another debate (e.g. clonetrooper costumes prob would have looked better both then and now), but I respect Lucas and ILM for really pushing the limits of what was possible at the time. No one can argue against the impact that their work had on the industry

So I don't find myself pulled out of the film by those sequences any more than the stop motion pulls me out of Terminator or the fake backdrops pull me out of Donner's Superman during th flying sequences or the obvious man-in-a-suit shots pull me out of Alien. Special effects are a product of their time and should always be viewed with that context in mind

[Geoff D]

I do subscribe to that notion of taking VFX as a product of their time, as I can happily be entertained by the old King Kong (which, incidentally, has the same kind of hilariously tin-eared dialogue delivered terribly as the prequels do) or War of the Worlds (love them wires) but there's something so utterly fake and transparent (in terms of it being a non-physical effect) about bad CG that it always look more dated to me than any of the effects in the films mentioned above. I'll take fingerprints in the plasticine or wires holding up the models over poorly-done CG any day of the week.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I do subscribe to that notion of taking VFX as a product of their time, as I can happily be entertained by the old King Kong (which, incidentally, has the same kind of hilariously tin-eared dialogue delivered terribly as the prequels do) or War of the Worlds (love them wires) but there's something so utterly fake and transparent (in terms of it being a non-physical effect) about bad CG that it always look more dated to me than any of the effects in the films mentioned above. I'll take fingerprints in the plasticine or wires holding up the models over poorly-done CG any day of the week.

I think that's the thing with effects, bad ones always look terrible no matter the method or era they were created in and good effects remain timeless. But there's a charming artistry to practical effects and models which will never be afforded to CGI. We have a tendency to appreciate the work of the artists who make practical effects over their computer generated counterparts because they are making tangible tactile things.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by thegoat

While this explains why everything is shiny and new as opposed to the junk pile droids and ships of the OT, it's not really an explanation for dated CGI

I'm not knocking the PT. I love watching them. But any problems with the CG come from the fact that these were incredibly ambitious special effects films for their time. Even rival franchises of the same era (Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman, Matrix, etc.) didn't utilize digital effects the way the PT did. Whether that was a good decision for the films is another debate (e.g. clonetrooper costumes prob would have looked better both then and now), but I respect Lucas and ILM for really pushing the limits of what was possible at the time. No one can argue against the impact that their work had on the industry

So I don't find myself pulled out of the film by those sequences any more than the stop motion pulls me out of Terminator or the fake backdrops pull me out of Donner's Superman during th flying sequences or the obvious man-in-a-suit shots pull me out of Alien. Special effects are a product of their time and should always be viewed with that context in mind

Spot on. Another reason why I support the preserving of the OOT. To show future generations the updated versions with the impression its the original version is very misleading and IMO very wrong but Ive already given my view on that.

CGI for me is both a blessing and a curse to the movie business. In ways its helped filmmakers achieve stuff that is beyond what can be created in the real world while at the same time its been over abused to the point where for me almost every new movie I see these days looks the same. The other week ago me and the family saw the trailer to the upcoming Mummy film with Tom Cruise and we all just kinda looked at each other and thought 'too much CGI'.

CGI for me has past the stage where it'll 'wow' me because frankly thats how I expect effects to be done these days. Even when I heard they were gonna go back to practical effects for TFA I knew this didnt mean they were gonna avoid CGI altogether and why would they??

Im just gonna stick with SW for a second. Is there moments where I can admit the CGI helps?? Sure. The CGI battle shots in ANH definitely make the battle more intense. The cleaned up landspeeder shot in Mos Eisley is better than the original. So yes in ways it helps.

However I also think theres times where it slips. The CGI Jabba scene for me doesnt work regardless of which version youre watching. Lets face it when that scene appears we're staring at Jabba the whole time and not for the reasons we should be staring at him. I definitely feel Lucas pushed the CGI a lot in the prequels to the point where its almost as if the environments are the real stars of that trilogy.

So I dont dislike CGI but I personally dont expect much with it anymore. When I picture how a movie thats coming out is gonna be pulled off I just say 'well theyll do it with CGI' and thats usually the case. I feel better about CGI when its being used in the context of the story and is being used to fill in the blanks that cant be done in the physical realm. However, if its being done to the point where it stands out too much and the physical world is now entering the animated world it can get very repetitive and thats not always good.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heh, I actually LIKE the Geonosis ground battle stuff and I think it's Coruscant that looks horribly shiny and fake in Ep II, but one thing we both agree on is the dreadful delivery of "Look over there!" from Ewan McGregor.

Worst CGI offence in the prequels imo is in the stupid factory scene in Clones. So, so terrible. Verges on embarrassing.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Worst CGI offence in the prequels imo is in the stupid factory scene in Clones. So, so terrible. Verges on embarrassing.

Agreed. If it actually meant something to the story then I could let it go, but it was added in pickups because Lucas felt he needed another action scene before the 20-30 minutes of solid action that closes out the last couple of reels, which highlights just how in thrall to the technology he really was. I get the feeling he wanted to see if he could do an entire action scene from scratch just because he could.

Take that out and restore the deleted 'Padme's family' stuff and this would vastly improve the movie for me.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Worst CGI offence in the prequels imo is in the stupid factory scene in Clones. So, so terrible. Verges on embarrassing.

Yeah, Clones has a lot weak CG...the ending where the Star Destroyer is taking off is quite poor too. The planet with the chase between Fett and Obi wan is rather bad too - the planet ring rocks/asteroids are really poor especially compared asteroid models used in Empire Strikes Back.

[kemcha]

I keep reading these articles about the existence of this 4K restoration of the first Star Wars film and some are pleading that Fox Studios and Disney come to some kind of distribution arrangement. I just don't see this happening. "Star Wars" is one of these few films that is worth anything to Fox Studios and while it would be nice to see Fox Studios continue to distribute the original six films (albeit under a distribution agreement with Disney), the way these writers are carrying on, it's as if Disney has some say in it, which they really don't.

Take a look at Fantastic Four and The X-Men. Fox Studios has been adamant that they are the only two franchises that they have that continue to be profitable for them. While the Josh Trank FF movie were bombed worse than Hitler on a bad day, the first two Fantastic Four movies that they produced were successful for the studio. Fox Studios simply isn't going to give up the rights to those few films that they continue to own into perpetuity.

I suspect that Fox isn't going to allow Disney to get anywhere near the first Star Wars film so it's doubtful that a complete series boxed set will ever be released. The only kind of deal I can see happening is if Fox and Disney work out a deal where 20th Century Fox continues to distribute the first six films but under a distribution agreement with Disney.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by kemcha

I keep reading these articles about the existence of this 4K restoration of the first Star Wars film and some are pleading that Fox Studios and Disney come to some kind of distribution arrangement. I just don't see this happening. "Star Wars" is one of these few films that is worth anything to Fox Studios and while it would be nice to see Fox Studios continue to distribute the original six films (albeit under a distribution agreement with Disney), the way these writers are carrying on, it's as if Disney has some say in it, which they really don't.

Take a look at Fantastic Four and The X-Men. Fox Studios has been adamant that they are the only two franchises that they have that continue to be profitable for them. While the Josh Trank FF movie were bombed worse than Hitler on a bad day, the first two Fantastic Four movies that they produced were successful for the studio. Fox Studios simply isn't going to give up the rights to those few films that they continue to own into perpetuity.

I suspect that Fox isn't going to allow Disney to get anywhere near the first Star Wars film so it's doubtful that a complete series boxed set will ever be released. The only kind of deal I can see happening is if Fox and Disney work out a deal where 20th Century Fox continues to distribute the first six films but under a distribution agreement with Disney.

Oh geez, not this yet again.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed. If it actually meant something to the story then I could let it go, but it was added in pickups because Lucas felt he needed another action scene before the 20-30 minutes of solid action that closes out the last couple of reels, which highlights just how in thrall to the technology he really was. I get the feeling he wanted to see if he could do an entire action scene from scratch just because he could.

Take that out and restore the deleted 'Padme's family' stuff and this would vastly improve the movie for me.

At least it gives R2 his obligatory hero moment, so that's something.

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yeah, Clones has a lot weak CG...the ending where the Star Destroyer is taking off is quite poor too. The planet with the chase between Fett and Obi wan is rather bad too - the planet ring rocks/asteroids are really poor especially compared asteroid models used in Empire Strikes Back.

I couldn't disagree more. I love the look of AOTC; it's one of the reasons I hold the extremely unpopular opinion that it's the best of the prequels. To me, everything you're calling "weak CG" is beautiful and painterly. Not "realistic" per se, but it all looks like production illustrations come to life; as if the movie and the "Art of the Movie" are one in the same. I feel the same way about the LOTR movies; at their best, they look "painterly" as well, but in the style of Alan Lee and John Howe. To my eyes, there are few sights as breathtakingly gorgeous as the Star Destroyers taking flight at the end of AOTC.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Arawn

At least it gives R2 his obligatory hero moment, so that's something.

CGI Threepio though... Yikes.

There's something morbidly enjoyable about watching Clones though, at least on a technical level. Seeing all that formative but pretty primitive digital tech used so extensively (to the point of overkill, Lucas just throwing everything he can into frame). It really is quite horrible to look at though, has no lasting value in the same way ANH or TESB does.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Actually, there's a place in Rogue One where the ships don't look like CGI, they look more like Legos!

It really did look like LEGO's. It was not good.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think that's the thing with effects, bad ones always look terrible no matter the method or era they were created in and good effects remain timeless. But there's a charming artistry to practical effects and models which will never be afforded to CGI. We have a tendency to appreciate the work of the artists who make practical effects over their computer generated counterparts because they are making tangible tactile things.

I very much agree with this. I do think it's a shame that CG artists often don't get credit for their creative efforts and get a lot of flack for it. As a term, CG is often thrown around with disdain as if the animators are cheap hacks with no artistic sensibility. Really though, the problem people have with CG comes from filmmakers and studios who choose green screen backdrops and animation when it's not appropriate for the sake of cost or convenience. I don't think anybody would have been happy if Lucas used mostly hand drawn animation to created Geonosis either, no matter how good the animation was. It also would have looked pretty silly if all the droids were puppets or stop motion in this day and age

For another example, I don't see anybody talking about how embarrassingly bad the CGI was in early Pixar films. You can't tell me that, objectively, the animation even in the droid factory sequence looked less realistic than a lot of the animation in Finding Nemo or Monster's Inc, but it gets trashed anyway because the sequence was extraneous, didn't flow well, featured some poor compositing, and so on.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

I couldn't disagree more. I love the look of AOTC; it's one of the reasons I hold the extremely unpopular opinion that it's the best of the prequels. To me, everything you're calling "weak CG" is beautiful and painterly. Not "realistic" per se, but it all looks like production illustrations come to life; as if the movie and the "Art of the Movie" are one in the same. I feel the same way about the LOTR movies; at their best, they look "painterly" as well, but in the style of Alan Lee and John Howe. To my eyes, there are few sights as breathtakingly gorgeous as the Star Destroyers taking flight at the end of AOTC.

I never understood the hate for AOTC. A very good Star Wars movie. It has some slow parts in the middle, but the time Anakin & Padme are going into the arena, it is a fantastic movie.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by kemcha

I keep reading these articles about the existence of this 4K restoration of the first Star Wars film and some are pleading that Fox Studios and Disney come to some kind of distribution arrangement. I just don't see this happening. "Star Wars" is one of these few films that is worth anything to Fox Studios and while it would be nice to see Fox Studios continue to distribute the original six films (albeit under a distribution agreement with Disney), the way these writers are carrying on, it's as if Disney has some say in it, which they really don't.

Take a look at Fantastic Four and The X-Men. Fox Studios has been adamant that they are the only two franchises that they have that continue to be profitable for them. While the Josh Trank FF movie were bombed worse than Hitler on a bad day, the first two Fantastic Four movies that they produced were successful for the studio. Fox Studios simply isn't going to give up the rights to those few films that they continue to own into perpetuity.

I suspect that Fox isn't going to allow Disney to get anywhere near the first Star Wars film so it's doubtful that a complete series boxed set will ever be released. The only kind of deal I can see happening is if Fox and Disney work out a deal where 20th Century Fox continues to distribute the first six films but under a distribution agreement with Disney.

I'm certainly no insider so I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe that Fox doesn't really hold any power regarding A New Hope. I'm under the impression that Disney has control over how/when it is to be distributed, and Fox must acquiesce to their requests.

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by WestMan

I never understood the hate for AOTC. A very good Star Wars movie. It has some slow parts in the middle, but the time Anakin & Padme are going into the arena, it is a fantastic movie.

Agreed. I'd be content if it were the ONLY prequel, quite frankly. To me, it is the single-most satisfying cross-section of time: the waning days of the Old Republic, when Palpatine is manipulating "absolute power" over the senate; Anakin is young to enough to make us think "wow, that's a young Darth Vader", yet old enough that he's no longer saying "yippee"; it shows the origin and beginning battle of the Clone Wars, which we've heard so much about; and it's the ONLY movie that shows the one thing I day-dreamed most when I was a kid in the 80's: an army of Jedi fighting side by side with their lightsabers.

Granted, the romance storyline is freaking TERRIBLE. And I'm not exactly dying to see a spin-off where younger Obi-Wan is pals with Dex the Diner Cook... but the rest satisfies my "pre-New-Hope" curiosities without making me wince through Anakin's turn to the dark side... which, in my opinion, is the absolute low-point of the prequels... followed closely by formerly-badass Padme dying of a broken heart.

But I know I'm wayyyyy deep in the minority on my appreciation of AOTC.