Star Wars On Blu-Ray

[Too Much Garlic]

Like compare the difference between the stop-motion Terminator and the CG ones, the stop motion version is kind of hilarious.

And the cg ones were all manners of stupid looking - even so far as to grinding teeth and posing and shooting arbitrarily at everything and nothing. Prefer the stop motion over those cg ones any day - mostly because the people working the stop motion ones were better animators than those doing the cg ones. It's all about character and cg characters usually don't have any.

 

[darthviper107]

You're delusional

 

[a-dev]

And the cg ones were all manners of stupid looking - even so far as to grinding teeth and posing and shooting arbitrarily at everything and nothing. Prefer the stop motion over those cg ones any day - mostly because the people working the stop motion ones were better animators than those doing the cg ones. It's all about character and cg characters usually don't have any.

^I agree. CG endos don't look anymore real to me than the stop motion ones of old.

 

[Kamandi]

The technology of optical printing wasn't perfect, but it got the job done. 99.9% of the people watching Jedi for the first time back in 83 had no awareness of those goof ups.

ILM was juggling up to 168 different print elements in those shots. If it weren't for a few TIEs that sequence represents the highest point of that era of filmmaking. Lucas shouldn't be so dismissive of the optical effects in the OT, ILM won oscars for that stuff.

 

[Khev]

My mind equates the CG clones and vehicles in the PT with cut scenes in a Starcraft or PS2/3 game. Therefore at no point do they ever appear as "real" to me.

The AT-AT's and especially ROTJ space battle still look much better IMO.

 

[darthviper107]

Sure, it was great for that time. But then they got to Episode 1, so they did the Droid Control Ship as a miniature, but it was way easier to do the fighters in CG, and they ended up with a perfect result.

 

[a-dev]

The technology of optical printing wasn't perfect, but it got the job done. 99.9% of the people watching Jedi for the first time back in 83 had no awareness of those goof ups.

ILM was juggling up to 168 different print elements in those shots. If it weren't for a few TIEs that sequence represents the highest point of that era of filmmaking. Lucas shouldn't be so dismissive of the optical effects in the OT, ILM won oscars for that stuff.

Exactly. The ROTJ space battle was and is awesome and thats all models and optical effects. Yes they've improved it in recent years by cleaning things up but they're having to clean up 'old' CGI too.

 

[darthviper107]

My mind equates the CG clones and vehicles in the PT with cut scenes in a Starcraft or PS2/3 game. Therefore at no point do they ever appear as "real" to me.

The AT-AT's and especially ROTJ space battle still look much better IMO.

I think the clones shouldn't have been CG--that's just one area where it was lazy not to just make a set of armor, but they probably wanted to be able to do all the variations so they could sell more toys.

 

[Kamandi]

There's no doubt things are possible in the computer that weren't before, but many film makers have lost perspective due to the idea they can do 'anything'.

The camera doesn't linger on stuff in the PT films. You rarely have a shot that invites you to think of something as majestic. There's too much roller-coaster. The PT does often feel like a video game cut scene instead movies.

It also seems to affect the actors. The PT used too many virtual sets where the actors have no idea what they are reacting to. It also happened in the OT (Carrie Fisher in Empire drooling pointing at a blue screen and dead panning "Star Destroyers" is the one that always gets me.

 

[a-dev]

Yep, so glad Lucas changed the Clone armour for ROTS. My mind just wasn't capable of making the connection between the AOTC version and the Stormtroopers of ANH.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Sure, it was great for that time. But then they got to Episode 1, so they did the Droid Control Ship as a miniature, but it was way easier to do the fighters in CG, and they ended up with a perfect result.

And it looks boring and lifeless and less than real. No win.

The CGI from the early nineties beat any and all CGI from '95 and up to now for the simple fact that it was used right and sparingly and to serve the story. Now the story is neglected in favor of boring and lifeless CGI.

It was once said that the best special effects where the ones the audience didn't even notice. Now it is more the norm to throw it right in the viewers face while screaming: "doesn't it just look great and this is how much $$$ we spent on it".

 

[darthviper107]

They still did that with practical effects as well. And there's plenty of CG from the early 90's that looks like crap, mainly technical limitations since there wasn't software around at the time for things like camera tracking. Jurassic Park is still incredible though, but that required matching the camera by hand.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Yes, any and all effects that really stand out just to show much money was spent on it, optical, practical, digital, you name it, rather than being used right and for the story is a bad effect in my view.

The first Terminator movie was a "cheap" indy-style movie compared to T3. Though the stop motion in that first movie is noticeable, it was also in part due to the money available to make it. The fact that T3 had no story, crappy effects, basically nothing worthwhile, but enough money to make all those great and wasted it... I'll still take the first Terminator and it's effects over that pile of turd. The stop motion effects in T2 were of considerably higher quality due to the funds available for that movie. You also think they look bad compared to CGI?

 

[Too Much Garlic]

And the reason the Return of the Jedi space battle works so much better than any of the battles in any of the prequel movies is because you actually CARE about the characters risking their lives.

You can have all the money in the world, the best sets and the best special effects... but if you don't care about the characters and the story... the whole point of spending all those money for those other things are kind of wasted.

 

[darthviper107]

You're talking about story rather than technicality. Visually, the CG is better, in most cases (although it's still easier to make environments with miniatures).

And again with Terminator, I'm just comparing something like the CG Terminator Endoskeleton to the stop motion Endoskeleton. Of course T1 and T2 are better than T3, but that's due to the story rather than the FX quality.

 

[Adolfo]

The approach to the character never seemed any different to me between ANH and Jedi. People say that Harrison phoned in his performance...if he did I can't tell. Seems pretty consistent with ANH and ESB to me.

I think after being frozen in Carbonite he became a goody two shoes...lost some scoundrel he did....The Bluray set was well worth it for 75 shipped

 

[karamazov80]

I think some existing CG works as well as practical effects, but some doesn't. The space shots in the prequels looked pretty good to me (as I recall), as did the robots from Phantom Menace. But the CG clones and various aliens felt like walking cartoon characters. In Avatar, the aliens looked damn good. They walked in a pseudo natural way, their hair moved right, they had "realistic" imperfections on their bodies, etc., but they still looked too cartoony to be real. I think this technology still has a good long ways to go before they can properly mimic reality with CG characters in the way that fancy makeup and other practical effects have been able to achieve in, say, Guillermo del Toro's movies. Somehow the Jurassic Park monsters did it, but maybe it's easier to do with something so different from human beings.

 

[Darthrazz]

I think some existing CG works as well as practical effects, but some doesn't. The space shots in the prequels looked pretty good to me (as I recall), as did the robots from Phantom Menace. But the CG clones and various aliens felt like walking cartoon characters. In Avatar, the aliens looked damn good. They walked in a pseudo natural way, their hair moved right, they had "realistic" imperfections on their bodies, etc., but they still looked too cartoony to be real. I think this technology still has a good long ways to go before they can properly mimic reality with CG characters in the way that fancy makeup and other practical effects have been able to achieve in, say, Guillermo del Toro's movies. Somehow the Jurassic Park monsters did it, but maybe it's easier to do with something so different from human beings.

I always thought that Gollum from LOTR was far more convincing than Jar Jar, and both were released about the same time.

 

[Khev]

I think Davy Jones in DMC may be the crowning achievement of CGI so far. When I first saw that movie I simply couldn't tell. I knew that at least some of his tentacles were digital but was shocked to find out he was CG from head to toe.

Somehow in AWE I thought they took a slight step back and he seemed more cartoony in parts.

 

[Darthrazz]

I think Davy Jones in DMC may be the crowning achievement of CGI so far. When I first saw that movie I simply couldn't tell. I knew that at least some of his tentacles were digital but was shocked to find out he was CG from head to toe.

Somehow in AWE I thought they took a slight step back and he seemed more cartoony in parts.

Wasn't Davy Jones a guy in a motion capture blue suit?