[QuickTidal]

McLovin, on 28 November 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Like George Lucas himself said about the issue, "Movies are fake."

Indeed. It absolutely baffles me. Do those who don't like the use of green-screen use rail against comics, or cartoons, or paintings for looking fake?

Out of all the upset about the prequels it's the one argument I normally challenge since it makes absolutely no sense and smacks of "needing to complain about SOMETHING"....just complain about the storyline and dialogue and be done with it.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 28 November 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Indeed. It absolutely baffles me. Do those who don't like the use of green-screen use rail against comics, or cartoons, or paintings for looking fake?

No. Because they're not asking me to buy that they're real.

CGI inserted in live-action is, for the most part, and it breaks the immersion when it fails too badly.

The issue with the Prequel Trilogy though isn't so much that it doesn't look real as the weird disconnect between the actors and the CG elements. Somehow it's never really believable that they're in the same room. After all the original trilogy hardly looks realistic either but no-one complains about that.

As for saving money - well no, as an audience member that gives me no comfort whatsoever. If it was a smaller production I could understand the point, but that it might have made a few million less out of the fucking hundreds of millions it earned gets little sympathy from me. Especially since Episodes II and III both earned a fairly substantial amount less than I anyway - ie, making a product less good than it might have been is not the way to make money.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 28 November 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 November 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

Indeed. It absolutely baffles me. Do those who don't like the use of green-screen use rail against comics, or cartoons, or paintings for looking fake?

No. Because they're not asking me to buy that they're real.

CGI inserted in live-action is, for the most part, and it breaks the immersion when it fails too badly.

The issue with the Prequel Trilogy though isn't so much that it doesn't look real as the weird disconnect between the actors and the CG elements. Somehow it's never really believable that they're in the same room. After all the original trilogy hardly looks realistic either but no-one complains about that.

As for saving money - well no, as an audience member that gives me no comfort whatsoever. If it was a smaller production I could understand the point, but that it might have made a few million less out of the fucking hundreds of millions it earned gets little sympathy from me. Especially since Episodes II and III both earned a fairly substantial amount less than I anyway - ie, making a product less good than it might have been is not the way to make money.

Bollocks. Movies are fake. Plain and simple. No one is asking you to buy that it's real. They are asking you to allow them to use the vehicles they choose to...to tell you a story. That's it.

Re: The issue about the money: was that these movies could not have been made on the scale they were without those savings. So they could have used less money and made more practical sets, but from a filmic standpoint of scale they'd never have pulled off half the scenes.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 28 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Re: The issue about the money: was that these movies could not have been made on the scale they were without those savings. So they could have used less money and made more practical sets, but from a filmic standpoint of scale they'd never have pulled off half the scenes.

And would that have been a bad thing? It'd have led to a leaner focus, if nothing else. Just for comparison, Serenity cost half of what Revenge of the Sith did but the big space battle scene kicked seven shades of the opening battle of Ep III, which is pretty similar in what's going on.

Quote

Bollocks. Movies are fake. Plain and simple. No one is asking you to buy that it's real. They are asking you to allow them to use the vehicles they choose to...to tell you a story. That's it.

Okay, maybe real is the wrong word. But they have to, for the moment of watching, be believable, and dodgy CG gets in the way of that.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 28 November 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 28 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Re: The issue about the money: was that these movies could not have been made on the scale they were without those savings. So they could have used less money and made more practical sets, but from a filmic standpoint of scale they'd never have pulled off half the scenes.

And would that have been a bad thing? It'd have led to a leaner focus, if nothing else. Just for comparison, Serenity cost half of what Revenge of the Sith did but the big space battle scene kicked seven shades of the opening battle of Ep III, which is pretty similar in what's going on.

Ah, but that is a story quality point, not one about CGI. The opening battle in SITH is a bad example as the goal of it was not space battle, but rescue Palpatine...the space battle was secondary (but yeah, it's not a good scene...but that's had little to do with the CGI and more to do with execution).

Quote

Okay, maybe real is the wrong word. But they have to, for the moment of watching, be believable, and dodgy CG gets in the way of that.

Disagree...cheerfully disagree tho PG. As usual.

[Illuyankas]

Jurassic Park managed to combine prosthetics and CGI wonderfully, and the actors being able to react to things they can actually see helps so damn much, compared to looking vaguely in the direction of what will be a whirling death machine but is currently a tennis ball on a stick. Also yes, movies are fake but a big glowing sign saying THIS IS A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE destroys whatever immersion you've managed to salvage from the immeasurably terrible stylistic choices made by the creators. Seeing the characters walk along a greenscreened walkway that's made into a bustling interstellar metropolis reminds me of all those old adventure games like Darkseed 2.

Also, about 'saving money'? Let's be honest here, it's Lucas. If he'd thought he'd have made more cash on selling the trooper suits as memorabilia afterwards than they cost to create he's have made a million of them.

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 28 November 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Jurassic Park managed to combine prosthetics and CGI wonderfully, and the actors being able to react to things they can actually see helps so damn much, compared to looking vaguely in the direction of what will be a whirling death machine but is currently a tennis ball on a stick. Also yes, movies are fake but a big glowing sign saying THIS IS A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE destroys whatever immersion you've managed to salvage from the immeasurably terrible stylistic choices made by the creators. Seeing the characters walk along a greenscreened walkway that's made into a bustling interstellar metropolis reminds me of all those old adventure games like Darkseed 2.

Also, about 'saving money'? Let's be honest here, it's Lucas. If he'd thought he'd have made more cash on selling the trooper suits as memorabilia afterwards than they cost to create he's have made a million of them.

The JURASSIC PARK comment is a REALLY bad example...as the only reason that they used a combo of CGI and pratical stuff was up to the cost (at the time) of CGI...otherwise Spielberg went on record as saying that he would have gone completely that way. You will notice that JP2 (shot a few years later when the tech was less expensive) is almost ALL CGI...I think the only practical effect in the entire film is the T-Rex baby they carry.

So wait...rubber puppet doesn't take you out of the story, but for some reason CGI does? Riiiight. How about the more truthful response which is that rubbery puppets were the status quo when you grew up and were totally accepted....thus you see no problems with it...meanwhile you were an adult (or reasonable facsimile thereof) when CGI made its rise to prominence in film and your childhood imagination was gone, thus you look to see what's wrong rather than sit back and enjoy. Tell you what, go and ask a kid who grew up with the prequels if the CGI "looks fake" to them or that it "takes them out of the film"...I bet you a thousand bucks they will tell you it never does. So what you are complaining about is tantamount to the people who want the swishyness of vinyl on their music...or the people who RAILED against the use of sound in film...you're a (excuse the pun) Dinosaur in the film world.

Why do I say this? Well, CGI is not going away. Ever. In fact, more and more films are being crafted with full green screen backdrops (which have replaced matte paintings...which you can see in old movies and it looks like a painting if you let it). So getting annoyed with it seems...counterproductive...I guess? GL paved the way for that with the prequels. Do they always look great? Nah....but when I go to a play and I can see the sets moving on wheels between scenes it doesn't "take me out of the story" saying "I AM A SET ON WHEELS AND NOT A REAL BACKDROP"....because quite frankly such a complaint removes your imagination from the process of enjoying fiction on screen...and really, what on earth is the point then?

The way I see it some people are always going to be complaining that "the CGI looks fake" ...and to me those folk will never be the demographic...cause they don't seem to be there to enjoy the movie.

[Illuyankas]

Yes, tell me my opinion oh master! We are as children compared to you and your grasp of fucking cinema! Please tell me what I meant to say some more! Call me a manchild for disagreeing you again, I loved that part!

Get the fuck over yourself.

The CGI in the prequels, for me, is BAD CGI. It doesn't fit. It looks awkward and the actors have no grasp on what's meant to be happening, which is also a failure of direction. That's my view of it, which is not that I'm some fucking luddite asshole. Prometheus is a great example of what good CGI is like, which yes is a function of better tech but also a result of direction that works, plus they also had actual props and whatnot for the actors to interact with! And if nothing else that movie looked amazing. Also mail me your stupid thousand bucks already cause my cousins were about 8 and 10 when they first saw Episode 1 and while they liked Jar Jar, being his target audience, they thought it looked silly compared to something like Toy Story. Yeah, that's another anecdote for you, prove me wrong by writing what I truthfully meant to say again if you want.

(and JP2 sucked for many reasons)

[QuickTidal]

Illuyankas, on 29 November 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Yes, tell me my opinion oh master! We are as children compared to you and your grasp of fucking cinema! Please tell me what I meant to say some more! Call me a manchild for disagreeing you again, I loved that part!

Get the fuck over yourself.

The CGI in the prequels, for me, is BAD CGI. It doesn't fit. It looks awkward and the actors have no grasp on what's meant to be happening, which is also a failure of direction. That's my view of it, which is not that I'm some fucking luddite asshole. Prometheus is a great example of what good CGI is like, which yes is a function of better tech but also a result of direction that works, plus they also had actual props and whatnot for the actors to interact with! And if nothing else that movie looked amazing. Also mail me your stupid thousand bucks already cause my cousins were about 8 and 10 when they first saw Episode 1 and while they liked Jar Jar, being his target audience, they thought it looked silly compared to something like Toy Story. Yeah, that's another anecdote for you, prove me wrong by writing what I truthfully meant to say again if you want.

(and JP2 sucked for many reasons)

Dude, calm down. I didn't call you a manchild. I said an adult (or reasonable facsimile thereof)as I don't know your age by rote...thus I didn't want to assume that you weren't an 8 year old when the first prequel came out (and therefore not an adult) k? Take it down a peg and don't assume I'm attempting to insult you when I wasn't.

I'm not telling you what to say...you really seem to love calling people out that expressing their opinion to counter something you said is immediately them TELLING YOU HOW TO THINK. It's not. It's them sharing their opinion, and if that includes pop psychology on your statement...they are free to do that...as you put it out there to be argued with.

I'm not telling you what to do or how to see movies. I'm just giving you my opinion on what I think is a really counter-productive way to view these movies. It just seems kind of backwards to moan about how CGI looks fake...which I don't think I should have to tell you downplays the hard work of a lot of individuals who are trying their best to help tell you a story. Whether it's Frank Oz with a puppet, or a guy who sat at a computer for 6 hours creating a CGI Clone Trooper, the effort and goal are the same. If they don't entertain you, that's fine...if they take you out of the story, that's also fine...I'm just telling you, right here and now that you probably won't find a kid who was born after 1998 who would have the slightest issue with the CGI in these films(your cousins notwithstanding...since most of the kids I know have no issues with it, mileage varies, but I wager that MOST kids don't). The same way we accepted puppets, they accept CGI. This dates your issues with it as a traditionalist need, not a state of the cinematic world.

...and again CGI is not really going anywhere...so maybe don't focus on it?

I also implied that you are certainly not alone in that opinion...inferring that I'm not in the majority either in the way I view it. LOTS of people take the same stance about CGI (especially early CGI)...including a whole whack of my friends. I don't stand there and tell them they are wrong, I ask them what they are gaining by dissecting the CGI out of a film as "bad", and express my view that these things seem silly to focus on. The Dark Knight could have been made with a slew of bad CGI...and the script and actors would have still sold me the entertainment I got from it. That's the point i was attempt to make to you...but apparently failing to do so.

Have your opinion homey, I'm not trying to steal that from you at all...but don't come on thread and swing your opinion at me if you can't take mine back k?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 29 November 2012 - 01:06 AM

[worry]

Let's all fight.

[QuickTidal]

Let the dickpunching begin!

[worry]

I agree with the people who found the bad CGI (as opposed to just CGI) in these movies distracting, particularly in the second movie. I agree with QT that there are lots more important reasons to hate these movies. I agree with myself that all of those things are symptoms stemming from the same source: these movies were not made in good faith.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 29 November 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

I agree with the people who found the bad CGI (as opposed to just CGI) in these movies distracting, particularly in the second movie. I agree with QT that there are lots more important reasons to hate these movies. I agree with myself that all of those things are symptoms stemming from the same source: these movies were not made in good faith.

Indeed. which was what I was apparently poorly trying to point out.

Hatred of the prequels should stem from story and direction right out of the gate.

The CGI in TPM is cartoonish because it was a-pioneering at the time. And it was one of the first films (and AOTC) to do close up, speaking CGI characters instead of people in suits and yeah, that's jarring when we've not seen it before...but CGI Yoda in RotS is nearly perfect...but that's cause he was made like 6 years later.

It's interesting, for instance, to go back and watch Gollum in THE TWO TOWERS on BluRay...he stands out WAY more than you'd think he would if you concentrate on him...meanwhile everyone thinks that he's the REAL step forward in CGI characters. He was...but that was more for what they accomplished with mo-cap and the character detailing on the character, and less how he fits with the live action background...I mean I'll be really interested to check out how much slicker the HOBBIT version of Gollum will probably look than his LOTR incarnation 10 years on, especially in 48FPS.

PROMETHEUS was mentioned, but is not really comparable, if only because it doesn't have CGI characters really, as much as it has backdrops, holograms, ships and creature work. Yeah, it's gorgeous...but the company that did it was MPC, who did SKYFALL, THE HARRY POTTER FILMS, WATCHMEN, and JOHN CARTER BUT they also did CLASH OF THE TITANS, JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, and PRINCE Of PERSIA....subject matter of CGI is important. Because the same staff can produce the above stellar stuff and the above cartoony stuff...the issue being WHAT they are animating.

My argument for the prequels would be that almost ALL of AOTC was shot on green screen backdrops....but those backdrops, crowd scenes ect. look GORGEOUS...it's only the close up full character stuff that is worthy of the "bad CGI" comment (again, in my opinion). But that's what gets focused on. Nevermind that if Jar Jar, the Gungans and Watto ect. weren't IN TPM and ATOC, then the CGI would be looked at as groundbreaking. I mean, stunning matte paintings that move and feature real characters, lights and motion ect.? what's not to like?

Oh and on record the CGI Wookies, in my opinion looked amazing.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 29 November 2012 - 02:00 AM

[worry]

That's where I agree with the others. I've only seen II and III on DVD not HD and I'm not going to watch them again (I'd rank them I>II>III by the way...progressively worse, not progressively slightly less bad, as others find them), but I didn't find anything about them, foreground or background, gorgeous that I can recall.

[QuickTidal]

Stuff like this, I think is lovely and splendidly rendered. The attention to detail in these backdrops, to me, is amazing.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 29 November 2012 - 02:33 AM

[worry]

See, I like the second and third ones there, but don't like the first or fourth ones at all. Sometimes it's less about the technical competence of the work (which I have no issue with generally) than the results. Often enough these movies go almost as Lisa Frank as Avatar did, at least as far as that can go with desert and urban backdrops. And so sometimes it's less "Why didn't you get that right?" than it is "Why did you bother getting that right?" Or better yet, "Why did somebody conceive of this concept and pay you to get it right?" But there's also some downright bad stuff, like the entirety of the gladiator scene, the canyon location with Grievous and Obi-Wan riding that stupid lizard, that lava cave in III's fianle that looked like a live action geocities page. I almost puked up my lunch every five minutes.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 29 November 2012 - 03:12 AM

[Defiance]

Concerning the puppets:

Go watch Jabba in Episode VI. Then watch him in the altered Episode IV where he talks with Han by the Falcon. Then watch him in VI. Then tell me that the Jabba in IV looks better.

As for the little kid comment, my six-year-old cousin, who is a huge fan of Star Wars (although, like almost all kids, he loves the prequels too, probaby even more than the originals), pointed out just how out of place Jabba looks.

Puppets/plastic costumes aren't necessarily better than CGI; it's simply how they're used. Look at Yoda in Episode I. It's a puppet, and he looks stoned off of his ass. Very poor use of a puppet there.

I think it's just a point that we'll have to agree to disagree on, QT. CGI isn't the devil, and it can definitely be used to enhance movies. It just feels extremely awkward here. Concerning what people have mentioned about how the actors seem like they're talking to people in other rooms/that aren't there, and how they look in the "general direction" of things rather than right at them, I remember listening to a Ewan McGregor interview awhile back where he talks about filming the final scene of Revenge of the Sith. He talked about how the entire scene felt like the silliest thing he'd done in the movie because he's sitting on this immobile block, straddling it back and forth to simulate that he's riding it, and holding a plastic baby. Then he gets off it, gives the baby to the Aunt, and goes back toward the block (the animal that he's riding). He then realizes that he doesn't know which way he should mount the thing - has it turned around? Is it still facing the same way? Meanwhile, Lucas is screaming for actors to "look at the moon!" and nobody knows where the hell it is because they're in a green room.

Edit: Found the clip, starts around 8:00.



I think that Lucas just got so caught up in what the fancy new CGI technolgy could do for him that he didn't even consider any alternatives.

This post has been edited by Defiance: 29 November 2012 - 03:35 AM

[Defiance]

Briar King, on 29 November 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Haha my old man got a kick out of the lizard riding event. I really liked the Utapah planet scenery in general as well as most of the planets in Ep III esp the planet Feluria where the female Knight was shot in the back after order 66.

I'm pretty sure Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was inspired by that planet (Feluria).

[QuickTidal]

Defiance, on 29 November 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Concerning the puppets:

Go watch Jabba in Episode VI. Then watch him in the altered Episode IV where he talks with Han by the Falcon. Then watch him in VI. Then tell me that the Jabba in IV looks better.

...and then watch the Hutt's that are in TPM for the Podrace...they look better than both.

Sure Jabba in JEDI looks great and realistic...but he was a HUGE character that they spent a lot of time building and was operated by like 7 guys...meanwhile Salacious B Crumb looks like a muppet with a hand up his backside...you can see the rubber bend on the Rancor when he dies and gets squished...and Admiral Ackbar barely moves his mouth when he talks and has no articulation on his head whatsoever. It's what we all just chose to accept at the time, cause it's what we had.

[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

worrywort, on 29 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

Let's all fight.

 starwars-meme-15.jpg (57.43K)
Number of downloads: 1

Defiance, on 29 November 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Go watch Jabba in Episode VI. Then watch him in the altered Episode IV where he talks with Han by the Falcon. Then watch him in VI. Then tell me that the Jabba in IV looks better.

Seconded. CGI Jabba was an abomination unto God. It will hasten the apocalypse.