Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

That might be because CGI dates faster than practical effects.

yeah, well it's not just the effects, it's the trying to make Jake Lloyd into a Macaulay Culkin clone, Jar Jar's comedy sidekick seeming as if he stumbled out of the worst Disney Glammy Show tunes 90's animated film, trying to Titanic up Attack of the Clones (and achieiving Pearl Harbor results) and action scenes and visuals that seem outright taken from films of the mid-late 90's, early 00's.

[tigertron]

ROTS holds up fine and I was even impressed with how TPM holds up (even though it does look a bit dated now), but I'd say AOTC seems the most dated out of the three.

[sheldo]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Is it just me but do the much more recent prequels seem more dated then the nearly 40 year old original trilogy? They haven't aged well at all.

They have. I remember being wowed by some of the stuff in SFX in AotC but now the cgi'd clone troopers look really fake as does Ewan riding around on the creature thing (amongst a ton of other blue screen work). The same applies to superman Neo in the Matrix sequels; the transitions between real Neo and CGI Neo are really noticeable too.

There's stuff in the originals that haven't aged well (the Tauntan stop motion) yet they look great (hoth battle). My kids enjoyed the original trilogy the best so take that as you will.

[Forever Knight]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

That might be because CGI dates faster than practical effects.

QFT.

Even then then CGI in Sith is still fantastic especially in the opening scene.

[Elbie]

J.J. Abrams Takes Audience Suggestions for Star Wars - YouTube

[mrr1]

Originally Posted by Forever Knight

Even then then CGI in Sith is still fantastic especially in the opening scene.

I agree. The special effects in Sith are still incredible. General Grievous, for an animated character, looks like an actual animatronic being.

A lot of 'Attack of the Clones' was cutting-edge at the time, but looks very dated already (some of it didn't look great to begin with - E.g. Anakin riding on the assbeast in the field).

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by mrr1

I agree. The special effects in Sith are still incredible. General Grievous, for an animated character, looks like an actual animatronic being.

A lot of 'Attack of the Clones' was cutting-edge at the time, but looks very dated already (some of it didn't look great to begin with - E.g. Anakin riding on the assbeast in the field).

Well it took AOTC for us to get the CGI in Sith ... as you said ATOC was very cutting edge back then ... the prequels may not be as loved as the originals but both trilogys were ground breaking in SFX and paved the way for other movies.

[MediaMalable]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

Well it took AOTC for us to get the CGI in Sith ... as you said ATOC was very cutting edge back then ... the prequels may not be as loved as the originals but both trilogys were ground breaking in SFX and paved the way for other movies.

A big part of why AOTC looks so bad now is because it was shot on a pretty lousy digital camera that wasn't ready for prime time (digital capture was still in it's infancy). Phantom Menace was shot on film, and Revenge of the Sith was shot on the Panavision Genesis (which is vastly superior to the camera AOTC was shot on).

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by MediaMalable

A big part of why AOTC looks so bad now is because it was shot on a pretty lousy digital camera that wasn't ready for prime time (digital capture was still in it's infancy). Phantom Menace was shot on film, and Revenge of the Sith was shot on the Panavision Genesis (which is vastly superior to the camera AOTC was shot on).

Agreed ... if memory serves me correct AOTC was the first feature film to be shot 100% digital

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by MediaMalable

A big part of why AOTC looks so bad now is because it was shot on a pretty lousy digital camera that wasn't ready for prime time (digital capture was still in it's infancy). Phantom Menace was shot on film, and Revenge of the Sith was shot on the Panavision Genesis (which is vastly superior to the camera AOTC was shot on).

I think it's the other way around. The images captured by the camera used for AOTC were so sharp that the CGI (which was still in its infancy) became rather obvious and stood out. They had spread a Vaseline-like substance over the lenses to get a less sharper image to make the CG blend in.

[klauswhereareyou]

I always thought the f/x in Attack of the Clones looked bad. Of course I saw it when I was older, maybe some of you saw it as a kid or teenager. The whole end battle with the clones and robots looked like a PS2 cut scene. The f/x in Sith looks better, especially the space stuff at the start and Grevious and the improved Yoda, but I think any scene where humans are jumping around (part where Obi-Wan looks all rubbery and hops out of his ship in the trade federation ship hanger...preaty much the entire Obi-Wan/Annakin duel once they get outside) looks like garbage. That dragon thing and the clone troopers look preaty fake too. Much of the F/X in Phantom Menace actually looks preaty good, probably due to the fact that a lot of physical models were still used on that one (except I think we can all agree that puppet Yoda looked like crap, looked better in Clones, and looked really good in Sith).

[Justwatched]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

3)Phantom Menace (mostly due to nostalgia . Anybody else played the videogame? )

loved it! Had it on PSone, a under rated classic

[mike79]

I still have that game along with episode 1 Jedi power battles for ps1 and dreamcast. That one was cool to.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I always thought the f/x in Attack of the Clones looked bad. Of course I saw it when I was older, maybe some of you saw it as a kid or teenager. The whole end battle with the clones and robots looked like a PS2 cut scene. The f/x in Sith looks better, especially the space stuff at the start and Grevious and the improved Yoda, but I think any scene where humans are jumping around (part where Obi-Wan looks all rubbery and hops out of his ship in the trade federation ship hanger...preaty much the entire Obi-Wan/Annakin duel once they get outside) looks like garbage. That dragon thing and the clone troopers look preaty fake too. Much of the F/X in Phantom Menace actually looks preaty good, probably due to the fact that a lot of physical models were still used on that one (except I think we can all agree that puppet Yoda looked like crap, looked better in Clones, and looked really good in Sith).

That Yoda puppet in Phantom Mence is sooooooooo bad! He looks even older there than he does in any of the other movies. He looks like Yoda on Meth or something! Anyway, I remember Rick Baker expressing his disappointment about that Yoda puppet and how he wished George Lucas had at least given him a shot at it.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

I think it's the other way around. The images captured by the camera used for AOTC were so sharp that the CGI (which was still in its infancy) became rather obvious and stood out. They had spread a Vaseline-like substance over the lenses to get a less sharper image to make the CG blend in.

CGI in its infancy? It had been nine years since Jurassic Park, 13 since the Water Tentacle in The Abyss. That was the infancy of CGI. 2002 was, at worst, awkward adolescence.

The technology to do it well on a smaller scale was there, but I think Lucas's insistence on doing every damn thing as CGI overtaxed the resources of ILM. By the time they made RoTS, they had caught up with the demands placed on them.

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

CGI in its infancy? It had been nine years since Jurassic Park, 13 since the Water Tentacle in The Abyss. That was the infancy of CGI. 2002 was, at worst, awkward adolescence.

The Puberty of CGI. That's a great metaphor.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

The Puberty of CGI. That's a great metaphor.

That was the problem with AoTC... It had zits and its voice was breaking.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

CGI in its infancy? It had been nine years since Jurassic Park, 13 since the Water Tentacle in The Abyss. That was the infancy of CGI. 2002 was, at worst, awkward adolescence.

The technology to do it well on a smaller scale was there, but I think Lucas's insistence on doing every damn thing as CGI overtaxed the resources of ILM. By the time they made RoTS, they had caught up with the demands placed on them.

I have to agree with that. I think it was too much at one time. But there were still limitations in the sense that they were pushing the envelope with the process. Depending how it's used, how much it's used, how much money they are willing to commit to it, and how much time they are going to take to refine it, the level of quality for each movie using CG will always differ, which is why AOTC looks so primitive compared to ROTS only a few years later. CGI is always evolving, and once it stops, it begins to look as dated as stop-motion.

[MediaMalable]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

I think it's the other way around. The images captured by the camera used for AOTC were so sharp that the CGI (which was still in its infancy) became rather obvious and stood out. They had spread a Vaseline-like substance over the lenses to get a less sharper image to make the CG blend in.

Yeah, I can't agree with you at all there. I think the dynamic range of the image in AOTC is frankly dismal, and Lucas made excessive use of digital sets and digital set extensions to hide the fact that what the camera captured was flat and ugly, with overblown highlights and weird color rendition.

Revenge of the Sith on the other hand looks beautiful for the most part, as the Genesis is a VASTLY superior camera.

[aiman04]

What do you guys think about the Jonathan Rhys Meyers rumor? I think he would be very believable as Luke's son.