Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In 1999 Phantom Menace lost to the Matrix and in 2002 Attack of the Clones lost to The Two Towers. Something tells me they'll give it to War of the Worlds. That's Lucas' big competition this year.

well....the past two sw movies didnt really have anything going for them.....

this one has heaps...the space battle alone should get the oscar.

Yeah, Episode III should win an oscar

nope

what do you mean 'no'. theres no way he CANT get an oscar...

Star-wars ain't really a movie that's took serious ya know

star wars is real. its in my bedroom.

it just seems that the academy hates GL, for whatever reason.
so LFL will get no oscars...ever.... but whetever.
f*** the academy

Actually it will probably win Oscars for special effects, it's major competition will be War of the Worlds but I think the construction of Vader will probably blow WOTW out of the water there. Unfortunately that should be about it. No acting awards. Possibly one for Willaims for soundtrack since he's never won for Star Wars.

Should?
Yes, definately !
Will?
Never, it's the oscars, a selfproud prequel-hating crowd of politics-based-decision-making people. (which means anti-20th century fox)

The fact that the prequels got nominated derives from the fact alone that people from the industry pick the nominees.
The whole academy votes, they see "StarWars Episoder *something*" and won't vote.

Sad but true.
Same for Sound, I'm afraid.
And sadly for Johnny Willimas, too.

That sucks! I think it should get awards for best orginal story(The whole saga)

The way the academy acts, they like to give things their last shot. Star Wars may win a few things this year, but it certainly won't be nominated for Best Picture or anything. Sound, Sound Editing, Music, Original Screenplay, effects, etc are the only things it'll get nominated for, if even that.

Originally posted by PVS
it just seems that the academy hates GL, for whatever reason.
so LFL will get no oscars...ever.... but whetever.
f*** the academy Because he dropped out of the director's guild. They resent him for succeedning, even though he shouldn't be. INdependent films aren't supposed to exist.

Exactly, Lucas openly gives them crap for proving how useless they all really are. And they don't like that. Sorta like how the oil companies don't like anyone talkin' 'bout electric cars. I mean, the Matrix had good effects and all, but people who keep up on that stuff (read Cinefex for a quick but in depth look at the industry) know that the Matrix only created one new effect: Bullet time. The creation of TPM lead to 26 new innovations in various uses of special effects. They wrote a program to animate clothing for digital characters that didn't exsit ever before. Now everybody can bust out more realistic digital characters because now they have a program that governs where/how clothes should drape, move, etc. There were other breakthroughs made in model making, make up and a lot of other departments as well. Its just mindblowing how much they created and yet they loose to one effect that's all flash and, even worse, already tiresome 6 years later because no one can use it because it just makes people think of the Matrix. Whereas ILM's innovations are currently being used all over the film and video game industries, especially in the Matrix sequels, they wouldn't have been able to do all those CGI Neo and Smith fight scenes because their digital stunt doubles would have looked like crap if it weren't for that program. And AOTC, I mean c'mon!! Look at that battle scene at the end! Kamino! Coruscant! At least it lost to a more deserving movie that time though... But this time, there's just no contest. The three nominees will be from these movies no doubt: ROTS, War of the Worlds, Sin City, possibly Batman, possibly FF4 (but god I hope not), and an even less chance would be Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but I don't think that has a lot of huge effects in it. And it should go to ROTS. War of the Worlds, for the most part, is just destruction of things that already exist, maybe a couple cool space ships. Nothing too innovative, and ILM will be doing it anyway, so they win however you look at it, despite it being a different team and supervisor. But ROTS has to create everything from scratch, that's far more interesting. They'll be so many locales, so many stunning fights, so many big space battles, if it doesn't when, I've already told everyone I know, I will NEVER watch the Oscars again, which, after this years I was already pretty close to doing. I'm only gonna watch next year to see if ROTS wins. If it doesn't, f*&^ those fools!

i wish it would be, but it wont. none of the prequels will ever get an oscar. really too bad. star wars deserves at least one, for crying out load!

No ROTS won't win for best visual effects, probably
Weta Digital will win for King Kong .

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
Actually it will probably win Oscars for special effects, it's major competition will be War of the Worlds but I think the construction of Vader will probably blow WOTW out of the water there. Unfortunately that should be about it. No acting awards. Possibly one for Willaims for soundtrack since he's never won for Star Wars. I definately agree on the soundtrack aspect, Williams should win one for his work on Star Wars... he's been nominated enough.

Originally posted by hazkid
i wish it would be, but it wont. none of the prequels will ever get an oscar. really too bad. star wars deserves at least one, for crying out load! They got quite a few for ANH in 1978.

That's right.
But honestly, who cares about awards?
As long as one can enjoy it for onself.

Do really think those special effects are good enough to earn an Oscar??
I don't know...they look pretty poor in the trailer, especially that space battle!
Some of them remind me of those from the StarGate TV series

Oscars in this area have been going to pioneers. Unfortunately, Star Wars has just been producing more of the same. More in quanity and more in quality. Granted it is amazing...but if you look at Matrix...those effects were ground breaking...LOTR...the quality was so much higher than anything else, it was incredible. But then again, some things don't make sense...like Spider-man 2 winning....

Ultimately it depends on what the competition looks like. Ask me again in January.

Um, guys, John Williams won the Oscar for Star Wars in 1977.

Originally posted by Almareon
Do really think those special effects are good enough to earn an Oscar??
I don't know...they look pretty poor in the trailer, especially that space battle!
Some of them remind me of those from the StarGate TV series

Tell me you're joking.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Oscars in this area have been going to pioneers. Unfortunately, Star Wars has just been producing more of the same. More in quanity and more in quality. Granted it is amazing...but if you look at Matrix...those effects were ground breaking...LOTR...the quality was so much higher than anything else, it was incredible. But then again, some things don't make sense...like Spider-man 2 winning....

Ultimately it depends on what the competition looks like. Ask me again in January.

dude, go back and read my last post about that. The matrix created ONE new effect, granted, those films looked amazing, but they weren't ground breaking in the industry. Only bullet time, which again they can't use in other movies because it just reminds everyone of the matrix. TWENTY SIX NEW TYPES OF EFFECTS WERE CREATED JUST FOR TPM. Its easy to say its more of the same, because they are supposed to have a semi-consistent look. The impact on the industry from just Episode 1 was incredible. Go read up on the subject, get the Star Wars editions of Cinefex magazine, go read trade press from the Special Effects industry and you'll see what I'm talking about. ILM doesn't get as much credit as it should these days because to the average joe movie goer, a lot of what's out there looks impressive, but the Star Wars films, PT and OT have made a lot of those OTHER movies possible, like LOTR, Matrix, and Spider-man (which the first one was severely lacking in scale and detail consistancy with its digital stunt double).

Visual Effects in Spider Man and Spider Man 2 were crap!

I don't really like ILM

For special effects we have:

- The Opening Space Battle
- Various other shots
- Yoda vs Sids
- Ans Vs Obs

We have a hell ov'a Oscar winning moments there! If we don't win it then the judges are retards!

don't forget War of the Worlds is out this year... and King Kong

really, when i say 'f*** the academy' i dont say that out of
anger...i really dont care. i think the last time i watched the oscars
i was like 15 or 16, and even then it was a big *yawn*. also, the 'academy award winner' lable on a dvd has no impression on me
and is no factor in my decision to buy it or not. the academy just represents all superficial politics in a superficial organisation.

GL doesnt give a shit about them, so why should we?

Originally posted by eXSBass
For special effects we have:

- The Opening Space Battle
- Various other shots
- Yoda vs Sids
- Ans Vs Obs

We have a hell ov'a Oscar winning moments there! If we don't win it then the judges are retards!
There is no scene that does not include some visual effect.



Honestly, besides camerawork and whatnot, movies are pretty much subject to opinion. I have too many of my own opinions to care abotu what "Oscar" has to say.

Originally posted by PVS
really, when i say 'f*** the academy' i dont say that out of
anger...i really dont care. i think the last time i watched the oscars
i was like 15 or 16, and even then it was a big *yawn*. also, the 'academy award winner' lable on a dvd has no impression on me
and is no factor in my decision to buy it or not. the academy just represents all superficial politics in a superficial organisation.

GL doesnt give a shit about them, so why should we?
I disagree. Labels on DVD's mean something to me. If I know that a movie has won an Oscar, I usually go in with lower expectations.

As for ROTS, it probably won't win, but its effects will be way better than anything else that comes out this year. For all the praising people give WETA and other effects shops, no one else can touch ILM, and Lucas pushes them harder than anyone else.

Unno

I disagree. Labels on DVD's mean something to me. If I know that a movie has won an Oscar, I usually go in with lower expectations




Look for a ROTS vs. War of the Worlds vs. King Kong showdown, with the latter two sure to be favorites of Academy voters (b/c of Spielberg, Jackson...) Don't expect much from the Oscars

who's doing War of the Worlds VFX? is it ILM as well? Spielberg usually uses ILM...

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
who's doing War of the Worlds VFX? is it ILM as well? Spielberg usually uses ILM...

Yep ILM are doing them

Originally posted by eXSBass
For special effects we have:

- The Opening Space Battle
- Various other shots
- Yoda vs Sids
- Ans Vs Obs


Huh?
Aren't you missed anything? Like 90%?
All the enviroments?
Yoda?
Grievous?
Digital doubles?
Head replacements?
Envirments?
Hello?!

WOTW looks to be pretty exciting and I feel will have a better chance of winning than Episode 3. I think the reason Star Wars doesn't get it is because too many people are expecting too much. The special effects in most movies are not on par with the prequels, but since the settings are mostly natural, I think they just stand out more.

Star Wars is totally fictional and made from the ground up. In a sense, it meshes well as one piece and ultimately, doesn't force anything to stand out intensively. Sure, the scenes are big, but they're subtle at the same time. Nothing too overly "wow", just stuff that looks cool.

Not so sure if that's always a good thing, but the scenes are easily forgettable after you see some of them, but they never cease to amaze after constant viewings. That, in itself, says a lot.

I really don't care, I'm with PVS. I never watch the Oscars, they're too boring. As long as we know Star Wars is the best, who cares about the rest?

The effects in this movie look too cartoony.

^ I agree

Originally posted by mephistodesigns
dude, go back and read my last post about that. The matrix created ONE new effect, granted, those films looked amazing, but they weren't ground breaking in the industry. Only bullet time, which again they can't use in other movies because it just reminds everyone of the matrix. TWENTY SIX NEW TYPES OF EFFECTS WERE CREATED JUST FOR TPM. Its easy to say its more of the same, because they are supposed to have a semi-consistent look. The impact on the industry from just Episode 1 was incredible. Go read up on the subject, get the Star Wars editions of Cinefex magazine, go read trade press from the Special Effects industry and you'll see what I'm talking about. ILM doesn't get as much credit as it should these days because to the average joe movie goer, a lot of what's out there looks impressive, but the Star Wars films, PT and OT have made a lot of those OTHER movies possible, like LOTR, Matrix, and Spider-man (which the first one was severely lacking in scale and detail consistancy with its digital stunt double).

I know...but sorry...bullet time (at least the non-CGI bullettime) was even more revolutionary than what was done on TPM. It just was.

I know all about TPM, and did a paper on it way back in 1999 for English 102 (www.toddlbauerle.com if you want to read).

But TPM dropped the ball on some things ... like the Gungan parade at the end where everyone is in sync.

The problem is that the Academy doesn't differentiate between CGI characters and better looking CGI characters...and rightly so. I think if another film comes along this year and does something more revolutionary than just doing the same thing better...ROTS will have their work cut out for them when Oscar time rolls around.

ILM just isn't as cutting edge as it was fifteen years ago. It is a leader, but there are several FX houses that do extremely good work.

No Forge, I'm not.
Most of the effects are fuc*ing sweet, but some - like that screenshot of those two jedi starfighters flying above a stardestroyer is one hell of a shit!
You can clearly see, that those fighters are computer generated, they don't look real at all...take a look and you'll see...

Originally posted by tlbauerle
I know...but sorry...bullet time (at least the non-CGI bullettime) was even more revolutionary than what was done on TPM. It just was.

...

The problem is that the Academy doesn't differentiate between CGI characters and better looking CGI characters...and rightly so.

Well, if they don't differentiate between CG characters and better looking CG characters, why do they differentiate between bullet-time and better looking bullet-time. The Matrix was definitely not the first use of non-CG bullet-time.

Unno

I think the Academy has chosen pretty good movies to win for the fx category, with the exception of Spidey 2 beating Harry Potter 3, which had far better visuals. But Star Wars has some tough competition this year: against Sin City, Hitchhiker's Guide, King Kong, Narnia, Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds, Harry Potter...and personally, I don't think the new Star Wars have had the greatest fx. Sometimes there's an occasional good shot, but most of the time....there's some really bad fx.

I'm hoping that some of the trailer shots get fixed i.e. Kashyyyk shot toward the end, with a few wookies running around and that (forgot name) huge tanker shooting missiles... that was just pathetic

Just so you know, ROTS has over 2,200 special effects while LOTR has 1,300! ROTS is getting an academy award, it is its DES-TINY!

it doesnt matter how many fx it has....thats the point. theres an overusage of it. im sure it will be beaten like AOTC and Phantom Menace both were.

it'll definitely win best score

Originally posted by JKozzy
They got quite a few for ANH in 1978.

yeah I think like 4 or something like that

I'm not bs'ing, but i think it'll win for special effects, and maybe sound too., just throwing that out there.

ANH awards: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/awards



I totally agree... the overuse of CGI in AOTC killed the film for me. And I don't think it'll be much different this time around.

I think the award will go to either War of the Worlds or King Kong... though I'll really have to reserve my judgment until I have actually seen the films

As for the score... I dunno. Star Wars has only ever won for score once and been nominated for only the OT... maybe it has something to do with the fact that he reuses a lot of stuff from the other edisodes, hance making it not a totally "original score"...

Originally posted by unno
Well, if they don't differentiate between CG characters and better looking CG characters, why do they differentiate between bullet-time and better looking bullet-time. The Matrix was definitely not the first use of non-CG bullet-time.

Unno

Exactly, Bullet time isn't all that revolutionary at all. And, as I've pointed out, nobody uses it now because it looks like the Matrix. That's not what the Oscars about, the Oscar is for ACHIEVEMENT IN THE FIELD OF VISUAL EFFECTS. Saying the matrix should win because of one "new" effects vs star wars' twenty six new effects, that can still be used, that furthered the industry, which where used to make LOTR and the Matrix sequels, is ludacris. Its like saying, well, the Lakers had one point, but it was really cool, the Knicks had twenty six points, but we're gonna let the Lakers win anyway. Its total BS. I'm with PVS. #$%^ the Academy, they're just a bunch of old farts who don't understand the technical aspect of film, they probably don't even know what cgi stands for or that the PT isn't ALL cgi, there are a TON of shots that still have miniature sets that look SO GOOD average joes THINK they're CGI, so the Academy just votes based on politics and d!k sucking of people they like. Its all such BS. That's why I think its so cool that Lucas, Tim Burton, Coppola, and a few others never show because they know they're outcasts, they know its a "private" party of suck ups, and they don't waist their time. Instead they're out there in the trenchs improving film, making art, and generally doing a better job of it than most.

sorry if someone mentioned this, but what about the hitchikers guide to the galaxy, I think if anything beats SW it will be that, and thats only from what ive seen from the trailer

I'm pretty sure THE MATRIX was the first use of bullettime...

Besides...Star Wars computer effects are real easy to see through. They haven't been all that believable.

this is true, nice sig by the way, i have the same thing as my wallpaper on my desktop, except the PT 3 are on top and the OT is on the bottom

Thanks!

Haven't been believable? the only reason you know its cgi is because OBVIOUSLY there are no real gun-gans, toydarians, etc. The textures, solidarity, digital matching when it was inserted in with real actors was amazing. And in Europe, they seem to be with it, because the PT has won SEVERAL major visual effects awards in Europe. And the Matrix was NOT the first to use bullet time. It was used in GAP ads a couple years before, its also been used in kung fu movies for years, the Matrix was just the first time it was used in a major western film.

I find your post to be very agreeable, mephisto.

Unno

BTW, the earliest use I know of Bullettime was in Beetlemania, a documentary made for the BBC, which was released in 1996. That would be three years before The Matrix.

Originally posted by lau_timmy
In 1999 Phantom Menace lost to the Matrix and in 2002 Attack of the Clones lost to The Two Towers. Something tells me they'll give it to War of the Worlds. That's Lucas' big competition this year. Actually, I think WOTW and ROTS will both lose to Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong.

WETA is just to powerful for ILM.

If that is the case with Bullettime...I stand corrected...

But as far as believability...CGI doesn't come close. Sorry. Maybe its because I've done some CGI work and use photoshop extensively for work and play...but I can see right through stuff and so can a lot of people.

Water for example...I have yet to be convinced of ANY CGI water. Textures...they are good, but still not convincing. In fact...I think the problem is in the detail...it's too clean.

pogel and mephisto, i agree 100 %

the academy is overly self-proud and makes its decisions based on political aspects of movies and the popularity of the people involved.

as deserving of any oscars as ROTS may be, it will never win one because the academy hates GL

even being a huge matrix fan, i have to admit that TPM created MORE useful and revolutionary effects than the matrix.

bullet-time is awesome, but how does it effect movies that are being made today?

Star Wars will definately not win score, because its not original, like Dodo pointed out. And I think Matrix had far better visuals than Star Wars. As much as I'm anticipating Episode 3, I think there are many better visual films this year. Although I could see Star Wars at least being nominated.

I totally agree with ya hunchy

Firsly GL has to submit ROTS to the academy in order for it to be eligible for oscars.

Secondly both Matrix and TTT movies had original SFX combinations to them when compared to TPM and AOTC. Complete CGI characters are not enough nowadays.

I would be very surpridsed if Hayden Christensen wins Best Actor

The effect of Darth Maul falling down the shaft looked like crap. It didn't even look completely done. That's one of the many reasons TPM didn't win.

I'm sure Star Wars will be submitted, but will it even be selected is the question. They always choose 3 films to be nominated. There's not even a chance Hayden would be nominated. Not only do any actors hardly ever get nominated for fantasy/sci-fi films, but Hayden Christensen is a bad actor. I think he looks better in Episode 3, but he was horrible in Episode 2.

I thought Phantom Menace had far worse effects shots than Maul falling down the shaft. Many many worse ones. It didn't lose because of one shot. It lost because Matrix was far superior as far as effects.

ROTS has a great chance of getting an oscar in the special effects department, but best actor/actress, supporting actor/actress - it just aint gonna happen which is kinda sad since Alec Guinness was nominated for best supporting actor, and the first movie was nominated for best picture. A long time ago....

NO.

Hayden for Best Actor?!?! WTF!?!

There is NO way he'll even be nominated... the only awards ROTS has a chance of winning are the technical ones... ie Visual Effects, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Costume, Art Direction (?).

Personally, I don't think it'll win anything... the academy hasn't liked any of the prequels.

Y'know...this is really a stupid conversation. NO ONE here has even seen the damn film yet. Will it be nominated...most likely.

Claims like: "ROTS has a great chance of getting an oscar" cannot be made.

Thanks for everyone else saying the effects weren't all that great. I was starting to think I was nuts.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
If that is the case with Bullettime...I stand corrected...

But as far as believability...CGI doesn't come close. Sorry. Maybe its because I've done some CGI work and use photoshop extensively for work and play...but I can see right through stuff and so can a lot of people.

Water for example...I have yet to be convinced of ANY CGI water. Textures...they are good, but still not convincing. In fact...I think the problem is in the detail...it's too clean.

Really? That's strange, because I use Photoshop, Illustrator, Renderman, Maya 6 and a few other programs on a regular basis, and my knowledge of these systems has only made the PT MORE impressive to me. The water in Kamino wasn't convincing? Or even the surface scenes of Finding Nemo? Damn. That's weird man. My friend and I, both designers with frequent users of these systems, and are by no means considered amatuers in our work, find the PT to be just mindblowing, the amount of work, the breakthroughs for the industry as a whole, the doors opened for smaller companies to get going because ILM has simplified what was once thought years off... Watto alone, the stubble, the texture, the facial work, the lighting, just amazing. Yoda, with his still jiggling ears, especially in the trailers for ROTS, just looks outstanding. I love picking up on all the tricks they do, it impresses me that much more because I know how much more the general populace is being affected sub conciously by such subtle work.

Sorry man...Kamino looked like crap...Close ups were decent, but wide establishing shots look terrible. I never bought it was water. My curse is seeing though this stuff...

I'm this way with all digital stuff. I went to a photographer's gallery the other day and while my mother in-law gasped at the stuff, I was like...Um...its all photoshopped and all cover levels were tweaked, etc. She was like..no...I was like..Yes...and ultimately I was right.

I just can't buy a lot of it.

Look there is no question that ROTS will be nominated. The other five movies were nominated before, so I am pretty sure it will be nominated. The question is who will it go against. I have been thinking of other possible movies. War of the Worlds, ILM basically going against itself, Fantastic Four, Sin City, King Kong, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That is all I can think of right now. Anybody else have anymore movies.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Y'know...this is really a stupid conversation. NO ONE here has even seen the damn film yet. Will it be nominated...most likely.

Claims like: "ROTS has a great chance of getting an oscar" cannot be made.

Thanks for everyone else saying the effects weren't all that great. I was starting to think I was nuts.

you are nuts, the people claiming the matrix has better effects than Star Wars are too. Go watch one after the other. There's just no comparison. And for someone who thinks this is a stupid conversation, you've sure done a whole TON of posting to defend your position. We've seen enough trailer, we've seen screen shots, tv spots, clips up the wazoo... and every shot I've scene so far has just been amazing. In the Matrix films you can ALWAYS tell when they use a digital double, like when Neo fights the multiple Smiths (obviously many of them that weren't doubles were digital), I can point out every time Neo is digital, his clothes just don't hang right in their digital people. And I love the Matrix almost as much as Star Wars, but its just not BETTER than Star Wars in the effects category. There are a bunch of scenes in AOTC I bet you didn't even notice were altered because they're so sublte. I'll list them, and I'm sure you'll just say you know because, duh, I've posted them already, but you'll claim you knew because you use Photoshop.

In the speeder chase, Obi-wan's hand is digital when he catches Anakin's lightsber, not because Ewan had any problems. His hand just went out of frame and that take happened to be the best performance. So instead, the moved the frame down and added a digital hand catching a digital lightsaber.

When the younglings are training, they've all been repositioned in the shot and had their arms digitally removed and then replaced with digital animated arms to show them fight properly because, as Nick Gilliard points out, its very hard to get 6 year olds to follow fight moves to a T. If ILM had done the shot as filmed, they'd all kill each other. So they moved them around in the shot and digitally replaced they're arms.

Then, when Anakin's picking up on Padme in that gazebo like thing on Naboo that overlooks the water, GL thought it odd that he suddenly touches her back, so he digitally inserted a hand caressing her hand BEFORE Anakin touches her back.

And that's just the tip of the ice berg of touched up effects that weren't planned, only done because of neccessity. You know how many people I've pointed that out to had actually noticed that on their own? Zero. So I think the CGI in that film was MORE than a little subtle.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Sorry man...Kamino looked like crap...Close ups were decent, but wide establishing shots look terrible. I never bought it was water. My curse is seeing though this stuff...

I'm this way with all digital stuff. I went to a photographer's gallery the other day and while my mother in-law gasped at the stuff, I was like...Um...its all photoshopped and all cover levels were tweaked, etc. She was like..no...I was like..Yes...and ultimately I was right.

I just can't buy a lot of it.

I see through it too, so can THE ENTIRE GRAPHICS PROFESSION. The difference here being, that because I know the craft, I respect good work. I can always tell when something is digitally augmented, for me it comes down to the quality. Would anyone ELSE (not graphics professionals) notice? If the answer is no, than the artist has done their job, and I respect that. That is what deserves awards, not flashy, obvious effects. And the funniest thing about this conversation, is that Bullet time isn't TECHNICALLY a special effect. You just make an enclosed circle around your target with cameras, shoot them while the computer controls frame rates for each camera, compile the shots, and then insert a digital background ( which ILM has already perfected in TPM...see Podrace, Geonosis, most of the sets period...). Bullet time is actually manipulating camera work, so its more in with cinematography.

Originally posted by vader519
Look there is no question that ROTS will be nominated. The other five movies were nominated before, so I am pretty sure it will be nominated. The question is who will it go against. I have been thinking of other possible movies. War of the Worlds, ILM basically going against itself, Fantastic Four, Sin City, King Kong, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That is all I can think of right now. Anybody else have anymore movies.

ILM doesn't really compete with itself, they do hundreds of movies a year, its just that in the last ten years, Rob Cloeman and the rest of the TPM/AOTC/ROTS team have been getting all the press.

Dude...

First off, I never said digital double work in the Matrix Sequels (Whose SFX sucked in comparison I think) were good...at all.

Secondly Obi-Wan catchign the saber...I didn't know about. That looks good. Some other things do not.

The younglings scene...I didn't know about that for sure but supposed it was CGI, thanks for the confirm. THAT is the reason I hate that scene...it NEVER looked real. The movements look way un-natural.

The hand caressing Padme looks weird to me...I don't think the movements match the shoulder/body and space.

Finally...BULLETTIME is a special effect since it requires 3D environments to make it work. Its more than camera work.

Now I have never said what ILM does isn't good...its just not always the best...AND I think fans who believe STARWARS should win an Oscar because it's STARWARS need to take a step back and judge the film based on its merits.

I think the technology is cool...but do not like the digital directing from the editing room because I think performances loose synergy when they have been edited together. Less is more...for me...but GL likes total control...which I am against.

First off, Finding Nemo had far better water effects than Attack of the Clones which is sad. The water effects were horrible in AOTC. Secondly, when I mentioned visuals as far as the Matrix, I was referring soely to the first one. But all the Matrix movies have far, far better visuals than Star Wars. Yes, that scene with CG Neo and Agent Smiths was horrible too, but there are so many obvious CG stand ins in AOTC, Obi Wan and Jango Fett in their Kamino fight scene was horrid, as was Jango Fett capturing them after the droid factory sequence, not to mention many times throughout the rest of the movie, the CG clonetroopers, the CG Yoda is pretty bad as well, the puppet was perfect. I think the new Star Wars movies use CG for anything, instead of using it where it should. Sin City, Hitchhiker's Guide, King Kong, Narnia, Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds, Harry Potter are other visual films-look for any of these to possibly be nominated as well.

The Yoda puppet was perfect...dear God I hope you aren't referring to TPM.

ROTS looks like a vast improvement with Yoda. We'll have to see.

Its not because its star wars, because I like the spider-man comics, but I didn't think the movie had very good effects. You don't see me clamouring for Oscar nods for acting do you? Writing? Picture? All right then. I am a professional designer who has studied and dabbled in special effects since the age of 14, when I write 50 some odd posts just defending a movies effects, its not for the movie, its for the quality of its effects. I think Starship Troopers was an awful movie, and the Lost World Jurrassic Park as well, but either one of them should have beat Titanic for effects. Same thing here, I don't care that its Star Wars, I care about the contributions to the industry that have been made AS A RESULT of the prequels and the fact that they deserve an Oscar, 'specially against the movies they have so far run up against in the category, and certainly against anything coming out this year.

I think if Sin City is in the running it'll lost Sin city had badazz special effects.

Very well said Devi|

Originally posted by vader519
Look there is no question that ROTS will be nominated. The other five movies were nominated before, so I am pretty sure it will be nominated. The question is who will it go against. I have been thinking of other possible movies. War of the Worlds, ILM basically going against itself, Fantastic Four, Sin City, King Kong, Batman Begins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. That is all I can think of right now. Anybody else have anymore movies.

Very True if The Matrix and The Two Towers were never made, then TPM and AOTC would have atleast an oscar each. So im about 75% confident that ROTS will atleast get nominated for an award, but we wont know shit till we see the movie.

I just checked on some site and was amazed that TPM was nominated for 4 oscars

I think ROTS will win a special award for life time achievement as we all know its the last one and the academy some times like to reward extraordinary movies and considering there are 6 movies now and still going strong i think that deserves an award in it self.

i totally agree it would be a crime if the Academy didnt

The sfx in all three matrix movies were awesome, no doubt about it. I know people complain about the neo smith fight, but they were awesome.

Originally posted by hunchy
As far as the younglings, there were a few that were CGed over, but there are also real kids too...So I don't know what people were all saying about that.

yes, the kids are real, some have cg faces of aliens put over the kids faces. However, in that shot, while they're training, NONE of their ARMS are real. They are all CG. And on top of that, they have all been repositioned in the shot. So none of them are now standing in the spots they were during actual filming. I love how all these people have such strong opinions and they don't even really understand the effects they're seeing, its just hillarious!

Okay...I just watched AOTC last night...Its worse that I remember. Everything from matte lines in some live action compositing, so serious lighting and shadow issues, to some poor cloth interaction (Exception goes to Kaminoans), and some extremely terrible ground interaction (I'm talking about footprints not making marks in the dirt and complete absence of shadows sometimes...)

Making clone troopers CGI was a bad move...personally.

Another bad thing is the lack of atmosphere in some shots. I personally think this was a general big leap forward on this picture (The cloudy day, daylight haze, and particle elements during the battle)...but at night...Coruscant is gleaming with crystal clear light...even the buildings from far away. Shouldn't there be less luminosity in light coming from buildings far away?? Everything is too clear. Another spot this bugs me is in the Astroid chase...we already have reference to an astroid field...here the coloring and crisp detail...even on astroids at a distance...is annoying.

TTT had every right to win over this film.

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Okay...I just watched AOTC last night...Its worse that I remember. Everything from matte lines in some live action compositing, so serious lighting and shadow issues, to some poor cloth interaction (Exception goes to Kaminoans), and some extremely terrible ground interaction (I'm talking about footprints not making marks in the dirt and complete absence of shadows sometimes...)

TTT had every right to win over this film.

I find it hilarious that you mention live-action compositing, when TTT has some of the worst composites I've seen (since they stopped being done optically, anyway). Look at the hobbits in the Boromir scene. Look at the hobbits riding Treebeard. Really pathetic.

Unno

BTW, to husky: WETA is not involved in the visual effects for Narnia. They were involved with the make-up / prosthetics and some of the models.

There's one film nobody has spoken of: Harry Potter 4. This film is supposed to have the highest budget of any film in history ($300 million), and anyone who has read the book will know about the incredible scenes that will make their way from the page to the screen (ie. First Task w/ dragons, hundreds of house-elves, etc.)

My picks for nominees: ROTS vs. WOTW vs. GOF

Let me clear a few things straight. While talking about the younglings, I said there were real kids mixed with some CG. I didn't go into detail about their arms being CG. First off, I noticed the scene looked awkward, but did not go frame by frame. No one needs to to tell that AOTC has some horrible fx shots. Secondly, where did you even hear that the arms are CG?

Yes, I agree making the clone troopers CG was a bad move. George Lucas loves his CGI a little too much.

The Lord of the Rings movies have far better effects than the new Star Wars films. I can't believe some people actually think that the PT has better fx than LOTR. That's pretty sad. I think that's why the LOTR movies won for visual effects every year and the PT never won...

And yes, I did mention Harry Potter 4 earlier, another film to look forward to being nominated as well.

And Unno, the name is HUNCHY, not HUSKY. And yes, WETA is working on the visuals for Narnia. Look at IMDB. Why would they make the props, costumes, etc, and not do visuals?

Originally posted by mephistodesigns
yes, the kids are real, some have cg faces of aliens put over the kids faces. However, in that shot, while they're training, NONE of their ARMS are real. They are all CG. And on top of that, they have all been repositioned in the shot. So none of them are now standing in the spots they were during actual filming. I love how all these people have such strong opinions and they don't even really understand the effects they're seeing, its just hillarious!

I just rewatched that scene and you're right... the effects are fine... I just really hate that scene.

The only real beef I have with the FX is at the very beginning when the kids are practicing with the saber against the remote... the movement of the arms and sabers just look so unnatural and.. just stupid. Though you could argue that they are using the force, but it still looks stupid. And Yoda doesn't look the best in that scene either. It's just a really dumb scene



I kinda agree about the OT puppet, but TPM Yoda looked awful! ot only did he look awful but his facial movements were terrible. I don't know how they could've taken such as great step back after 20 years... OT Yoda was great though... but Frank Oz woulda had a helluva time puppeteering the Yoda vs. Dooku duel

I agree. The movements of the younglings arms are choppy. I don't know if they're CG, but they look like he's moved them digitally into the positions they are supposed to be in.

I think the OT puppet was great. Far, far, far superior to the CG one. I'd take puppet over CG any day for Yoda. But as far as the fight scene, Yoda could have still been CG. He moves so damn fast you wouldn't be able to tell.

Originally posted by hunchy
Yes, I agree making the clone troopers CG was a bad move. George Lucas loves his CGI a little too much.

It's things like this that really annoy me. The Clonetroopers in AOTC looked horrible and there was absolutely no need for them all to be CG! even if they made a couple of costumes it woulda been a lot better.

and then you hear Lucas and especially Rob Coleman (man he's such a geek!) get all excited and say "we never even made one single clonetrooper costume, it's all CG"... like they're saying "ooh, look at me, look what I did. Ooh I'm sooo clever!"

I can never stand looking at Yoda's mouth when he is talking in tpm, it just goes up and down and the lip sink isn't good either.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
It's things like this that really annoy me. The Clonetroopers in AOTC looked horrible and there was absolutely no need for them all to be CG! even if they made a couple of costumes it woulda been a lot better.

and then you hear Lucas and especially Rob Coleman (man he's such a geek!) get all excited and say "we never even made one single clonetrooper costume, it's all CG"... like they're saying "ooh, look at me, look what I did. Ooh I'm sooo clever!"



True. They could have at least made some costumes, and either duplicated some like they used to do, or had the armies in the background CG. Just like Yoda could have been a puppet for most of the film, and CG during his fight scene...but oh well, its already done now.

Yup... but I'm afraid we'll be in for more of the same with ROTS.

Yeah...But it looks a little more improved in this one thankfully.

Originally posted by hunchy
Yeah...But it looks a little more improved in this one thankfully.

Agreed...so far.

Most of what I've seen does look quite a bit better... I just hope the rest of it is as well

but I have seen shots that make a worried

True.

Originally posted by HAROLD
There's one film nobody has spoken of: Harry Potter 4. This film is supposed to have the highest budget of any film in history ($300 million), and anyone who has read the book will know about the incredible scenes that will make their way from the page to the screen (ie. First Task w/ dragons, hundreds of house-elves, etc.)

My picks for nominees: ROTS vs. WOTW vs. GOF Why people are forgetting King Kong, I have no idea.

I did say King Kong if you read my post

I fear that King Kong may be just another CG-fest... so I'm going for WOTW, Narnia or HP

though I do think that Peter Jackson has a tad more control when it comes to CG than Lucas

PJ is directing king kong though.

There are some pretty big contenders... Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy, Chronicles of Narnia, War of the Worlds, Harry Potter 4, King Kong... The Academy douches may not even nominate Revenge of the Sith

Originally posted by hunchy
Let me clear a few things straight. While talking about the younglings, I said there were real kids mixed with some CG. I didn't go into detail about their arms being CG. First off, I noticed the scene looked awkward, but did not go frame by frame. No one needs to to tell that AOTC has some horrible fx shots. Secondly, where did you even hear that the arms are CG?

It in cinefex magazine, and indepth special effects publication. Its also on the DVD features some where. surprised so few people have heard of that.

Originally posted by unno
I find it hilarious that you mention live-action compositing, when TTT has some of the worst composites I've seen (since they stopped being done optically, anyway). Look at the hobbits in the Boromir scene. Look at the hobbits riding Treebeard. Really pathetic.

Unno

BTW, to husky: WETA is not involved in the visual effects for Narnia. They were involved with the make-up / prosthetics and some of the models.

THANK YOU!! All films have their ups and downs in the effects department, but, as someone posted the phrasing earlier, the academy also considers the CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD as a whole, and the Star Wars films have killed in that department.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
It's things like this that really annoy me. The Clonetroopers in AOTC looked horrible and there was absolutely no need for them all to be CG! even if they made a couple of costumes it woulda been a lot better.

and then you hear Lucas and especially Rob Coleman (man he's such a geek!) get all excited and say "we never even made one single clonetrooper costume, it's all CG"... like they're saying "ooh, look at me, look what I did. Ooh I'm sooo clever!"



what are you jealous or something? the clones looked awesome, and had they been actors, they wouldn't have been all the same size, they would have cost a lot more, and the CG clones look bad ass!!! I can't believe I'm hearing such complete crap on a movie board, on a star wars forum maybe, but this place is supposed to be filled with film fanatics that actually understand the process...its just amazing some of the things I'm hearing here.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
I fear that King Kong may be just another CG-fest... so I'm going for WOTW, Narnia or HP

though I do think that Peter Jackson has a tad more control when it comes to CG than Lucas

I don't think anyone has more control over their effects department than Lucas, he's there all the time, he owns it, he's their boss, and he's obsessive about his finished product.

Maybe my expectations are just too high...

but I stand my my statements, the CG clone troopers look crap! I mean as far as CG work goes, definitely they're pretty damn good. But compared to the real thing they suck... you can totally tell they're CG by both the way the look and the the way they move, it's just so unnatural.

As for my comment on Lucas's control on VFX I mis-spoke... what I meant was Jackson seems to do as much as he can with real practical effects (miniatures etc...). Lucas sees any opportunity to use CG and takes it.

I'm not exactly saying the CG work on the PT is terrible (ok, I may have said that, but I take it back). Most of it is okay, some of it is great and some is just awful. As far as CG goes the PT is way up there, but definitely not at the top of the field.

I just don't think the technology has come far enough to be able to use is in a substantial amount in a live action film... at least not as much as Lucas uses it.

When they can create CG troopers photorealistic I'll be happy for them to use them... but at this stage they can't:

http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3690/untitled16mx.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3481/untitled26lg.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/2330/untitled31qc.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/5747/untitled41fs.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/4722/untitled52zk.th.jpg http://img141.echo.cx/img141/7743/stormtrooperpc800x6001ig.th.jpg



I get bored

again, you have to see them in motion to really get my point... the CG clones movements are just horrid. But even from just the pictures I think it's clear.. at least to me

i never try looking into the Special Effects too deeply. The effects in all 6 movies look stunning to me. In a movie i focus on the character interaction and the storyline, i dont look closely in the background looking for shadows and footprints, i mean who cares?

And LOTR isnt so SPECIAL afterall. The film had many mistakes in certain fight scenes where people were incomplete with missing limbs and everything, or so ive heard, since ive never seen LOTR and i dont intend to

Originally posted by mephistodesigns
It in cinefex magazine, and indepth special effects publication. Its also on the DVD features some where. surprised so few people have heard of that.

It's on the audio commentary. One of the visual effects supervisors (John Knoll, I think) talks about that.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
When they can create CG troopers photorealistic I'll be happy for them to use them... but at this stage they can't:

http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3690/untitled16mx.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3481/untitled26lg.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/2330/untitled31qc.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/5747/untitled41fs.th.jpg http://img63.echo.cx/img63/4722/untitled52zk.th.jpg http://img141.echo.cx/img141/7743/stormtrooperpc800x6001ig.th.jpg



I get bored

again, you have to see them in motion to really get my point... the CG clones movements are just horrid. But even from just the pictures I think it's clear.. at least to me

Well, I think Episode II had INCREDIBLE visual effects. The ENTIRE Geonosis sequence was breathtaking. You've been putting down AOTC through the whole thread, and until now I haven't said anything. But that's just ludacris, saying the Clone Troopers animated badly.

i agree. What was wrong with the clonetroopers?

Originally posted by Stunrun
i agree. What was wrong with the clonetroopers?

Nothing at all. He's just trying to sound like he can see through any kind of visual effect in any movie.

Originally posted by hunchy
And Unno, the name is HUNCHY, not HUSKY. And yes, WETA is working on the visuals for Narnia. Look at IMDB. Why would they make the props, costumes, etc, and not do visuals?

I appologize for getting the name wrong. I was really tired when I wrote that. However, WETA is NOT doing the visual effects. I haven't checked IMDB's page, but IMDB has never been a very reliable source. The visual effects on Narnia are being done by Sony Imageworks and Rhythm & Hues. It's really not uncommon for multiple effects companies to work on a film.

Unno

Originally posted by HAROLD
There's one film nobody has spoken of: Harry Potter 4. This film is supposed to have the highest budget of any film in history ($300 million), and anyone who has read the book will know about the incredible scenes that will make their way from the page to the screen (ie. First Task w/ dragons, hundreds of house-elves, etc.)

My picks for nominees: ROTS vs. WOTW vs. GOF

You muggle

Originally posted by WookieWindu
You muggle

I know WookieWindu personally. In fact, it was ME who encouraged him to join KCM.

You spelled 'wookiee' wrong, Seth.

Originally posted by Stunrun
In a movie i focus on the character interaction and the storyline, i dont look closely in the background looking for shadows and footprints
I agree, the things I'm comlpaining about are not in the backgound though, they're front center stage...

Originally posted by Stunrun
And LOTR isnt so SPECIAL afterall.
Nope, LOTR had some terrible effects too: Legolas slaying the Elephant was horrible!


hmm, well you're allowed your opinion and I respect that even though I don't agree with it.

The Geonosis battle is probably my least favourite scenes because of it's use of CG... I mean, there looked to be entire shots composed entirely of CGI! and I could tell.

And the clonetroopers are terrible as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, in terms of CGI they're great (on par with legolas and the elephant *cringe*), but I just wont be happy until I see a real photorealistic trooper on the screen.. real or CG.


That's not what I'm saying at all... there are probably hundreds of effects in these films I didn't even know were CG. All I'm saying is that there are some really bad shots...

Originally posted by Stunrun
And LOTR isnt so SPECIAL afterall. The film had many mistakes in certain fight scenes where people were incomplete with missing limbs and everything, or so ive heard, since ive never seen LOTR and i dont intend to Shouldn't you at least see the damn thing before commenting?

Originally posted by mephistodesigns
what are you jealous or something? the clones looked awesome, and had they been actors, they wouldn't have been all the same size, they would have cost a lot more, and the CG clones look bad ass!!! I can't believe I'm hearing such complete crap on a movie board, on a star wars forum maybe, but this place is supposed to be filled with film fanatics that actually understand the process...its just amazing some of the things I'm hearing here. Actually they could have had someone dressed as a Clonetrooper and had him to moves, and then do what the ydid with the Wookies in Episode III. Just copy him over and over again. The effects in AOTC are cartoonish, and it deserved the loss it recieved at the Oscars.

Anybody that disagrees is just crazy.

Originally posted by CBright7831
Actually they could have had someone dressed as a Clonetrooper and had him to moves, and then do what the ydid with the Wookies in Episode III. Just copy him over and over again. The effects in AOTC are cartoonish, and it deserved the loss it recieved at the Oscars.

Anybody that disagrees is just crazy.

I completely agree

Originally posted by CBright7831
Actually they could have had someone dressed as a Clonetrooper and had him to moves, and then do what the ydid with the Wookies in Episode III. Just copy him over and over again. The effects in AOTC are cartoonish, and it deserved the loss it recieved at the Oscars.

Anybody that disagrees is just crazy.

"Cartoonish" is not the word I would use to describe the awesomeness that is AOTC.

Id be extremely surprised if it won a thing, the Academy hates Lucas remember

Originally posted by HAROLD
"Cartoonish" is not the word I would use to describe the awesomeness that is AOTC.

Wow, a AOTC worshipper. No matter if you like it or not, I in fact love watching the last 40 min of AOTC) I think its the best part of the movie. But it is INDEED definately cartoonish. If you can't see this, that's sad.

And I totally agree about using real people in suits, a suggestion made to Lucas from one of the other people working on it, which he of course turned down because he has overly loves CGI. Little does he know...

Cartoonish is a bit of a stretch for me...but it is right on the boarder.

When the effects people say all digital it doesn't mean all cg necessarily it usually means that its all constructed from elements on the computer.
In the geonosis scenes the foreground is miniature for the ground shots. there are so many minitures in these films as well as matt paintings.

the funny thing is is when people say they shouldn't use too much cg,

well how else would you do it ? 'usually' they only use it if it cant be done any other way. How would you film a flying shot on geonosis or Kamino? How would you get thousands of clones and droids t run around. it would take a long time to wait for a stormly ocean to film. i don't know about you but there aren't many cities like corasant, or any that wold let you fly a camera around at 100 mph. You coudn't shot minitures at that speed, just like the podrace.

People that say that theres too much cg it almost make it sound like the film makers cheating. Theres just as much artisty in a real set or a miniture one or in cg modles, if not more so.

You could obviously do the clone troopers but i think they look brilliant. you can't really say there animated badly because there mostly motion captured.

Y'know its a fine line...because some of the practicals (Nute and his gang, Yoda...) look like crap, too.

Okay..actually...all the masks looks TERRIBLE in the prequels. Were they really that bad in the OT or did I grow up with the cheese so much that I can't tell how bad it is.

I guess its a damned if you use too much CGI, damned if you use too little...

Originally posted by Smegulated
When the effects people say all digital it doesn't mean all cg necessarily it usually means that its all constructed from elements on the computer.
In the geonosis scenes the foreground is miniature for the ground shots. there are so many minitures in these films as well as matt paintings.

the funny thing is is when people say they shouldn't use too much cg,

well how else would you do it ? 'usually' they only use it if it cant be done any other way. How would you film a flying shot on geonosis or Kamino? How would you get thousands of clones and droids t run around. it would take a long time to wait for a stormly ocean to film. i don't know about you but there aren't many cities like corasant, or any that wold let you fly a camera around at 100 mph. You coudn't shot minitures at that speed, just like the podrace.

People that say that theres too much cg it almost make it sound like the film makers cheating. Theres just as much artisty in a real set or a miniture one or in cg modles, if not more so.

You could obviously do the clone troopers but i think they look brilliant. you can't really say there animated badly because there mostly motion captured.


Not true at all. Yes, I know that the Star Wars movies have many many minatures, blah blah blah, but the main percentage of the films are CG. I haven't seen any movies (besides those that are meant to for effect: Sky Captain/Sin City) that use as much CG nowadays as GL on the Star Wars prequels.

And not only is it the overuse of CG, its that a lot of it looks like total crap. I mean, if most of the movie was CG like it is, and looked good, I wouldn't really care. But in this case, the prequels have many bad fx.

As far as using to create worlds, and things like that its totally fine. But to use CG stuntdoubles, CG clonetroopers (you've got a problem if you think these guys look realistic or good in any way), fake sets, CG Yoda, CG R2, CG ships even (there's such a thing as models) CG 3PO at parts...I mean, the droid factory...just completely horrible...especially on the 3PO closeups, where he looks so cartoony you want to slap yourself....just complete shots CG, CG this, CG, that...etc, etc, etc. Have you not seen that most of the Star Wars movies are just the main actors in front of green screen. Episode 3, while they shot background plates, was ALL shot on soundstages with greenscreen....Now, yes you can build real sets, or at least parts of them. That's whats so sad, they can't even make a realistic background, which I've seen done far better in Pixar films. I'm sorry, but many things in Star Wars could have been done with costumes, real people, real sets, and other film trickeries...

There's such a thing as having people in suits, either copying and recreating them, or having at least the closeup shots and main clonetroopers be real, and the shots of large armies still be CG. I mean look at LOTR, they used CG in the right places. There are many sets, many real things, many costumes, and CG is used when they need it. GL is just overly fascinated with CG in general.

I really fail to see why everyone thinks CGI is such a horrible thing. It's not really different from using models if you think about it.

What are they supposed to do? Build an actual set for the droid factory, or the Jedi Temple? Put Obi-Wan and Anakin in the heart of actual volcano? It would be possible to some extent, but it would take a hell of alot more than 3 years to make a Star Wars film if they went in that direction.

I know the OT did this within 3 years each, but they weren't up to the magnitude of what's going on in these films location wise/battle wise and special effects wise for what is required to tell these newer stories. Yes there's alot of CGI. People can complain that it looks like crap, but using models nowadays would look even crappier than CGI in my opinion.

I disagree and agree to an extent... if you compare say the attack on the Death Star in ANH to what we've seen of the ROTS space battle so far, the ping-pong table with models on it doesn't even compare to ROTS.

But those models were built 30 years ago. And in terms of mechanical things (ie ships etc.) I think they do CG fine (though there is a sort of... feeling, you get with real models...)

It's when they use CG for organic things such as the clones, environments (Coruscant was fine, Geonosis was not), people or aliens. In these instances I think models, plate photography, and masks are far superior.... I have no problem with Nute's mask (except for the lip sync)

It better win Oscars otherwise I'm not watching the oscars.

Sith Master, you missed my points on a lot of things. First off, if CGI is done well, fine, so be it as long as it looks good. Okay?

Secondly, there's a point where there is just way to much CG. I'm not focusing on the sets mostly, just how EVERY little thing is CG in Star Wars. The Jedi Temple I did not complain about for instance, but easily could have been done a model as well.

They actually used models too, like for the arena and do you think that looks bad? LOTR uses many models as well. I think models show more detail and look more realistic. CG in the prequels are cartoonish and seem slapped together. Yes, there are also good shots. But many many bad in my opinion. Jango Fett for instance being CG in the Kamino fight....just horrible....think Matrix, or any martial arts film...its called wires...how much cooler that scene would have been with a real actor....and also him CG in the droid factory...not only is it terrible to have a real guy CG standing there, but it looks horrible, horrible, horrible.

As for droid factory, its called a mix between sets and SPECIAL EFFECTS. Now I'm talking special effects, not CG. The machinery looks so cartoonish and fake I cringe every time I watch that scene. Another thing is that when such action scenes with jumping and moving around a lot, some things just look choppy and don't look right.

Now the fight with Obi Wan and Anakin....You are bringing up scenes I never brought up. I think that stuff looks very good. Ya know why? It's not CG. It's a mix between real volcanos, and fake ones they BUILT. That's why it looks so good...

I personally think the battle on the Death Star still looks good...yes some shots look corny, but the detail is great. It looks gritty and real, not cartoony and fake. The special edition of that scene, I didn't mind the changes there...The new shots were pretty good I thought.

I think in terms of ships, go for models. I don't mind creatures and things to be CG. Because they are alive, and some things are hard to create. Ships and sets I think should be models and real sets in my opinion...Ships CG I hate to use the word yet again, look cartoony, especially that opening space battle in ROTS. Models look more like real ships. Even Steven Spielberg, a director I admire for his movies and because he actually has the fx team spend a good time on the fx and actually makes them look good. He doesn't overuse CG. He uses it when needed. The fx in Minority Report I thought were very well done. He even said, as GL's best friend, that GL overused CGI way too much in the prequels. He said that actors also need real sets to react to, so that the perfomances are better. Greenscreen/bluscreen is good only to an extent, but to shoot a whole movie on it.....Its over doing it...(Unless of course, as I mentioned before it as a style...AKA Sky Captain/SIn City)

I like the Nute Gunray costume, and agree the lip syncing is the bad part, but kind of like it because its like watching a japanese dubbed film...kinda funny...

And the original Star Wars won best fx that year. ROTS is not revolutionary in anyway. I think that there are many other films this year with far better fx that should win.

hmm... I guess I'll have to see the ROTS space battle properly before I judge that. But I do agree that models look much more realistic

Jango and 3PO CG did look horrible, horrible, horrible. And there was really no need for it like you said.

as for the Death Star battle, I have to disagree about the detail... the trench was great, but the shots along the surface were too budget and lacking in detail... but then they had a much smaller bugdet back then.

I think I'll have to take back what I said about Coruscant.. there were some bad shots there. In particular the high angle shot of Dex's diner before Obi Wan enters look terrible.

Creatures being CG... I dunno... they do it okay sometimes... I think the arena monsters are good, but things like the Eopie's and the cowthings are terrible.

one example of good use of CG in AOTC is Poggle the Lesser. I think he was great... the best CG in the film.

Originally posted by hunchy
ROTS is not revolutionary in anyway. I think that there are many other films this year with far better fx that should win.

yup I totally agree

Devil Dodo, I do like discussing things with you, because while we can disagree, you seem to do it an a none agressive way. First off, thanks for that. Your one of the only few...

You are right, there are some far away shots that look bad in the Death Star battle, but I think overall, I think the scene still looks mostly great even nowadays, with yes some bad low budget effects...but wow...I still love the old effects from the OT.

I noticed thought while looking up at IMDB, the Academy Awards, that I did not find an FX category for the year of Empire Strikes Back. This is odd. Anyone know anything about it?

I agree on that shot of Dex's Dinner. Not horrible, but just kinda not that good and cartoony and you can tell how small it is too. But the shot that I hate, hate, hate in AOTC is the one where Obi Wan, Mace Windu, and Yoda walk along that hallway when Yoda is on the flying chair thing....The background is terrible! It looks worse than any background I've seen in a movie, including entire CGI films. It is majorly lacking in any detail and looks awkard too.

When I said creatures being CG, I meant I like it over say ships or sets being CG, because some are supposed to look slimey and other-wordly, while ships and sets are not meant to look like a cartoon, but need to look real AT THE LEAST.

I agree also that Eopies and cowthings are horrible, like those things Anakin rides on Naboo. They look horrible, and it looks awkard with Anakin riding and falling off it. What a lame moment anyways.

And I agree that Poggle the Lesser looks good also. I also think that Watoo is very good CG, as well as various shots throughout the film (the flying through Coruscant, or some of the end battle stuff is pretty good....some of it bad...)

I also noticed there was no VFX category for ESB, or ROTJ for that matter, but they were awarded 'Special Achievement Award's for both. Perhaps there was no competition during those years... ANH was up against only Close Encouters

I see your point about CG creatures over CG ships and I agree, though I do think they are better at doing ships than creatures... but I still wont be happy with CG until I can't tell the difference between a CG ship and a model, and the technology hasn't come far enough for that to happen yet.

And yeah, that Hall scene with Yoda, Obiwan and Mace is terrible...

I also agree with what you said about Spielberg, I think he has a much better grasp on special effects (visual and practical) then Lucas. Jurassic Park has great effects and that was made over 10 years ago...

Yeah, strange huh about the visual effects thing the years of ESB and ROTJ.

Glad someone out there though shares similar ideas and tastes. I mean, I am an independent filmmaker myself and I try to do things as creatively as possible. If I ever make it big time, I want to do things right, not the fast and easy way and have my film look aged even after a year. That's what CG does most...It ages.

I'd just like to see Lucas win a lifetime achievement award this year. Seriously...

I also want to say...I love the discussion in this thread!

Glad you do. I think that Lucas should win a lifetime achievement award as well, he has done a lot for the movie business and special effects as a whole, if only his special effects on these new films were even up to other film's standards.....

PJ is the man if you ask me.

Originally posted by hunchy
Glad someone out there though shares similar ideas and tastes. I mean, I am an independent filmmaker myself and I try to do things as creatively as possible. If I ever make it big time, I want to do things right, not the fast and easy way and have my film look aged even after a year. That's what CG does most...It ages.

Yes, absolutely. The Battle of Hoth still looks great even today! I don't think it'll ever age. TPM and AOTC have already aged as the technology keeps advancing at rapid speed. Look at Jaba in the SE and then on the DVD only 7 years later how much further the technology has come...

CG does seem to be the faster and easier way, but it certainly takes it's toll on the film as a whole. It's finding that balance between practical effects and visual effects that is key.

I don't know if you've seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but that film is a great example of how you don't need CG to create great effects... almost everything was done on set, and I think it looks better than it would have if done in what is considered to be the 'normal way' these days (with computer effects). A very talented director.

I don't know...
The ads show this scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin are dueling and "surfing" on a rock in lava and I thought it didn't look real at all.

Dodo, very good points.

The battle of Hoth is definately great and always will be.

I think the real Jabba they made for ROTJ was an amazing animatronic/puppet, whatever you want to call it. Still looks very real. Not to mention the Yoda puppet in the OT.

And very true. That video version of the SE looks horrid, but the DVD version is not bad, but definately a HUGE change.

Eternal Sunshine was a great movie. You stole the words right out of my mouth. I thought it was one of last year's best films, as well as one that used his fx's perfectly and most of them being all onscreen, besides say people disappearing.

Originally posted by Darth Dean
I don't know...
The ads show this scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin are dueling and "surfing" on a rock in lava and I thought it didn't look real at all.

yeah, that has me worried too

but I'm gonna reserve my judgments on ROTS till after I see it completed

Originally posted by Darth Dean
I don't know...
The ads show this scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin are dueling and "surfing" on a rock in lava and I thought it didn't look real at all.

I agree that that shot looked very bad also. But I think the scene as a whole looks good, because they used real volcanos and actually built minature ones...The making of which showed that was pretty awesome.

That shot actually didn't look finished to me...who knows.

There were some differences in ads / trailers in previous films when compared to the final cut.

True, but don't expect too much...Low expectations are always good.

Originally posted by hunchy
Sith Master, you missed my points on a lot of things. First off, if CGI is done well, fine, so be it as long as it looks good. Okay?

Secondly, there's a point where there is just way to much CG. I'm not focusing on the sets mostly, just how EVERY little thing is CG in Star Wars. The Jedi Temple I did not complain about for instance, but easily could have been done a model as well.

They actually used models too, like for the arena and do you think that looks bad? LOTR uses many models as well. I think models show more detail and look more realistic. CG in the prequels are cartoonish and seem slapped together. Yes, there are also good shots. But many many bad in my opinion. Jango Fett for instance being CG in the Kamino fight....just horrible....think Matrix, or any martial arts film...its called wires...how much cooler that scene would have been with a real actor....and also him CG in the droid factory...not only is it terrible to have a real guy CG standing there, but it looks horrible, horrible, horrible.

As for droid factory, its called a mix between sets and SPECIAL EFFECTS. Now I'm talking special effects, not CG. The machinery looks so cartoonish and fake I cringe every time I watch that scene. Another thing is that when such action scenes with jumping and moving around a lot, some things just look choppy and don't look right.

Now the fight with Obi Wan and Anakin....You are bringing up scenes I never brought up. I think that stuff looks very good. Ya know why? It's not CG. It's a mix between real volcanos, and fake ones they BUILT. That's why it looks so good...

I personally think the battle on the Death Star still looks good...yes some shots look corny, but the detail is great. It looks gritty and real, not cartoony and fake. The special edition of that scene, I didn't mind the changes there...The new shots were pretty good I thought.

I think in terms of ships, go for models. I don't mind creatures and things to be CG. Because they are alive, and some things are hard to create. Ships and sets I think should be models and real sets in my opinion...Ships CG I hate to use the word yet again, look cartoony, especially that opening space battle in ROTS. Models look more like real ships. Even Steven Spielberg, a director I admire for his movies and because he actually has the fx team spend a good time on the fx and actually makes them look good. He doesn't overuse CG. He uses it when needed. The fx in Minority Report I thought were very well done. He even said, as GL's best friend, that GL overused CGI way too much in the prequels. He said that actors also need real sets to react to, so that the perfomances are better. Greenscreen/bluscreen is good only to an extent, but to shoot a whole movie on it.....Its over doing it...(Unless of course, as I mentioned before it as a style...AKA Sky Captain/SIn City)

I like the Nute Gunray costume, and agree the lip syncing is the bad part, but kind of like it because its like watching a japanese dubbed film...kinda funny...

And the original Star Wars won best fx that year. ROTS is not revolutionary in anyway. I think that there are many other films this year with far better fx that should win.

You bring up alot of good points. I can understand why you'd want them to use wires, models and stuff the good old fashion way. I guess alot of CGI never really bothered me, but that doesn't mean it didn't bother other people.

Thanks. Hey, to each its own. I just wanted to put my opinion out there.

Oh man, I can't believe what this thread turned into.

First of all: The basic Bullet Time was NOT invented for The Matrix but for Batman&Robin and also Lost in space, however it wasn't until Matrix that it was just done right.

The second:
"Crap" is hardly the word to describe anything, foul mouth usually does not underline a point but makes it seem less thoughtful.
I agree that AOTC had many, many small problems concerning the effects, but overall the show was really well done.
TPM had with the exception of 3 (!) shots probably the best visual effects ever to be put on film. I'm talking about the podrace, the whole Naboo stuff, the underwater sequence, JarJar, the final duel and battle, just the seemlessness of it all.

The other thing that's relly annoying is how people think they sound smart when they bash CGI for being CGI. (Funny enough, while most of the time it actually is a miniature...)
I'm not talking about the weird decisions not to make Clone suits, but about comments like "it all ruined the movie for me".
Well whatta you know, Greedo looked terrible, the whole Jabba scene was a farce if it hadn't been "holy StarWars" and the Ewoks are literally freaking me out till today.

So get a hold of yourself, don't follow the pricks at IMDB and see the movies with both an open eye and an open mind.
And if you think that the fact alone they used CGI ruined AOTC for you, you better not go see ROTS.