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

I havent made a thread for a long time, so i hope this works. I had a long discussion with my Art Tutor who specialises in Animation and Graphics. He prefers The Prequels to the Originals in the sense that it was visually a work of art, and visually more stunning than the Originals - True, but my other tutor who is more oldstyle is also a Graphic Designer, and said that the Prequels were just plain rubbish, and as a art form the Orginals were supreme. I think it's interesting that two guys who practice the same form of art would have such conflicting views. My first tutor doesnt see the Originals as a landmark film in movie history - which i disagree with, but maybe the Prequels were meant to be viewed as 'a work of art' - infact, if you watch the entire PT as artwork, you seem to enoy it even more imho.

so the question is - Do you think the Prequels work more as a visual 'work of art' than a typical movie

Naw I just seem em as a movie myself.

I've met quite a few people who prefered the model special effects over the CGI actually. It's also odd how much the CGI additions stand out in the renewed OT movies.

So I can see why one tutor would consider the OT as a better 'piece of art.'

yeh, both tutors are a couple of generations apart, and i guess if your more into animation you'd prefer the modern approach - but i like both lol

so far as art, I prefer the original trilogy because of the storytelling and the characters. The prequels have that as well, but sometimes I get the feeling that lucas was relying to heavily on his special digital wizardry... "hmmm, I cant think of anything to do here, so lets CGI some muppets and make them dance and stuff" I dunno, I like the prequels, but the computer animations are distracting. Word.

DDD

In my opinion there is very little that is very artistic about the prequels... sure they're visualy stunning, but that doesn't make them 'works of art'.

Originally posted by DDanDevious
so far as art, I prefer the original trilogy because of the storytelling and the characters. The prequels have that as well, but sometimes I get the feeling that lucas was relying to heavily on his special digital wizardry... "hmmm, I cant think of anything to do here, so lets CGI some muppets and make them dance and stuff" I dunno, I like the prequels, but the computer animations are distracting. Word.

DDD

This is exactly what I think, yes despite common opinion, including my own I do like some ideas in the PT. It's like Lucas ran out of BIC pens so decided to play around on a computer for the afternoon. So there was an absence of characterisation and emotion but twice as much action (fake action of course).

Of course one has to wonder what Lucas' real motives were for the PT, everyone knows who dies, who lives, there's not a lot one can do in that situation to make anything half as interesting as it should be.

And the PT could be described as works of art, lets not undermine the artists, both digital and real, but it really depends on your view of art.

good post Stun, I commend you.

thx kane, never thought i'd even bother making another thread again, but hey

You knew basically what would happen in the PT. So people would consider the OT better because they didn't know what was about to happen. But I like the effects of the PT. The monsters were cool and pretty good looking like the Reek.

from my first post - that's not to say that i also love the characters and storyline but i just generally think the Prequels are cool - and for those who say they are the 'worst' movies ever simply need they're heads examined.

I love the prequels because they took us somewhere new and different - yet at the backdrop of the entire trilogy it still felt like star wars to me.

Frankly I feel what's already been said;

The PT was much more visually stunning...............'kay that's about it for the PT.

The OT had a better storyline, more surprises, more emotion, and overall were just better movies than the PT.

and that's my point 'visually stunning' - it does inspire many of us Art Students who are doing Animation - even though i still believe the PT is more than just a fancy looking movie

I don't actually.

It is visually stunning yes, but there are much better examples of visually stunning out there.

Pretty easy to believe -- everyone has their own opinions as to what they like and think looks good, even if two people practice the same form of art.

Myself, I think the PT is 'prettier' looking, and I adore the art and especially the costume designs from it, but as a whole I like the OT better.

prequels were boring. that is why lucas decide to wait for visual effects to improve before continuing the star wars saga. episode I II III will always be better visualy. the prequels are just not that good. they are ususful but not very good
the lightsaber fights are slow and lame in a new hope.

But you have to understanding with that; it took Lucas a while to flesh out the whole Jedi thing...

If only AOTC and ROTS had a documentary on the DVD that charted every part of the production process, from early drafts to casting like TPM had - now thats why i still repect that movie, because the documentary gave you more understanding of the entire movie - and also the struggles that they overcame

Yes, eye candy.

No, they were good movies, not a work of art.

This all my own opinion, but there were some good acting moments.

TPM:

The relationship of Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon was well done, especially the scenes where Obi-Wan apologized for his behaviour, and Qui-gon when he died.

Palpatine playing friendly, helpful senator who had his own goals.

AOTC:

I enjoyed Christopher Lee as Count Dooku, and ....
I guess the only other part was when Anakin cofessed to Padme that he had killed the Tuskens... that had good music behind it and was well acted.

ROTS:
This movie had alot of good acting moments. Anything involving Ian before he became emporer is full of subtle bits that have to be payed attention to. Obi wan talking to yoda about not wanting to kill Anakin, Obi-wan talking to Padme, and his little speech on the hill at the end.

Not to mention the birth of the twins and padme's death/funeral.

I felt those scenes, seriously now, in an emotional way.

If you want eye candy... go watch Johnny Depp channel Michael Jackson, and romp around the chocolate factory.

I've had a nice little discussion with you on another thread so I'll spare you the trouble of regretting saying them, but others might not be so sympathetic

I apreciate that Exanda, and you have a good way of explaining (calmy and sanely ) your point of view.

I dont give a rats rectum what anyone thinks though, these are just my opinions anyway.

They can unload on my views, but they cant change them.

I really think the PT are good movies.

The others can go screw their unsympathy

" I'm just Keeedeeing"

" Aye dios mio"

i agree with the certain scenes that got me a lil' emotional - at the end of the day - this is Star Wars, and i cannot find a reason to hate it. And yes, i generally love the prequels. We should'nt allow such conflict, even though the fanbase has been separated, we all have our own opinions which will naturally defer in both good vibes and negative ones. Still, the upside of being a PT lover is that we can enjoy all six as one movie

ps - i have the right to hijack threads

Well, I suppose I'll throw my 2 cents in.

I prefer the prequels. In the sense that nothing ever bored me in the first 3 movies, it's an easy choice to make.

People claim that the Prequels are trash because they rely on special effects and not enough story. I don't think that's true. If you can block the special effects out of your mind and think of it as a whole, the prequels have an excellent storyline.

In TPM, we see the innocence of a young slave on Tatooine who's future is clouded by his inability to let go of his attachments.
In AOTC, Anakin struggles an emotional conflict between his love for his mother and Padme, along side of following the Jedi code.
In ROTS, Anakin's failure to let go of what he fears to lose leads him to the dark side and ultimately, behind the helmet.
Yes, there's alot of help from all the CGI, but if your forget about that for just a moment, you can see there is a logical story to the prequels, and it's not all that bad.

BTW: The OT had a ton of help from models, just like the PT has a ton of help from CGI. What's the difference really? I know alot more CGI is used than the models were, but there really isn't a difference when it comes to the movies being aided by special effects. ILM did the prequels, as well as the OT.

well said sith master x well saidthumbup

SMX the legend have returneth

And see, you've made some excellent points there as well Exanda. I totally respect your opinion. I guess it all depends on how one looks at it. I can understand completely where you're coming from, then again what bothers you about the prequels doesn't really bother me. That's exactly where the differnce is drawn.

I love the OT, and didn't think they were boring all togehter. ANH is good in every way. However, the first half of ESB doesn't do a whole lot for me. The second half of that movie is what makes it shine. (for me at least. ) And in ROTJ, I'm not a big fan of all the stuff that takes place on Endor. I don't hate it, it's just not my favorite stuff of the series. In Episodes 1, 2 and 3, there's nothing I can really say that I don't like about it. Of course, the prequels have flaws. There's a few things here and there. I find it hilarious how in the opening shot of ROTS, the Starship is the only thing floating above the entire surface of Coruscant, but when the 2 jedi starfighters fly underneath it, the entire planet is covered with ships, missles, lasers, and you know. But that's more of a mistake then a flaw or plothole. I just don't pick on the other stuff as much for some reason.

I just think ESB has something special, that little extra. And I think it's not to do with a great script and great direction.

The extra little bit of magic you get from ESB just seems to fall out side of everything else, like it's unexplainable.

To try and put my finger on it I think it was the culmunation of the locations (Hoth & Bespin), the costumes (such as Han Solo's snow outfit),
the way in which the way of the Jedi is explored, Han and C3PO arguing, the duel, the twist, Mark Hamill getting completely owned.

All in all I think that ESB is the most artistic Star Wars film, not because of the effects (because on quality it'd be one of the prequels), nor the amount used, but the way everything is used subtely, and it blends in to make on of the greatest films of all time.

The Prequels are good. But The Original Trilogy was so much better.


The Acting in the Original Trilogy was better, And the Dialogue ran much smoother than the Prequels. My theory is that the actors in the 70's were greatly disciplined. Money was fairly scarce then, And they had the ability to lay down the path. Where as The Prequel actors try their best to live up to the original Trilogy actors. Of course, In May cases laying down the path turns out much better than trying to do it over again just as good, or better for that matter, And I think that goes for every category I am trying to record in this little written correspondence. Let's not forget to mention that the Original Trilogy used older actors that the Prequels did. Throwing Things like-Experience, Wisdom, and The Ability to adapt-on the Board for them.

The use of CGI was much overused in the Prequels. Honestly, I think George lucas was too busy trying to sell tickets to a wider, and younger audience this time. That's why Characters like 'Jar Jar Binks' into the picture. George lucas worked so hard in trying to make great CGI effects, that he completely Ignored Dialogue for the characters. I almost slit my throat in the theater when listening to some of Obi-Wan's Dialogue in Episode 3. It sounded like His lines were based on a Saturday morning cartoon, or a Comic Book. 'You Wont get away this time......Count DOOKU!"

To make a long story short, George Lucas was so busy on trying to make something beautiful, he caught caught up and it backfired on him. Although he did make some great characters like 'Jango Fett' and 'General Greivous'. The Prequels are fun to watch when bored, and the Original will remain an american movie classic for as long as we live.

I agree with DW on most of his posts. The OT is the reason why fans became fans of Star Wars. I really don't see how can anyone say that they're a fan of the prequels and not of the original. That is just unheard and hard to believe. And also there is the Jedi Council factor that isn't very attracting. Sure Jedis have cool weapons and powers. But is just not as exciting as watching a young padawan Luke Skywalker fighting agaisn't the forces of the empire.

I feel the OT is more about the underdog. With the rebellion and the fight agaisn't the Empire. And maybe that is what appeals the most. Now, is the OT a work of Art? Maybe a work of great Filmaking and storytelling. But I quite enjoyed the artwork and time period of the OT than the prequels.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I agree with DW on most of his posts.

You meen you don't agree with all my posts?

*sheds tear*

Well that's certainly par for the course.



(grabs frodo/sam tryst pics and heads to the LOTR forum)

I'm really surprised at how many people dislike ROTS here. I can understand why people don't like the first 2 (even though I love them) but ROTS was killer in my opinion, and I don't care how much CGI was used. lol

RotS was just an overblown version of AotC and TPM, more graphics more lightsaber fights and more irrelevant and uninteresting yet colourful vilains.

Of course most people liked those bits of TPM and AotC so a film full of it is much better than a film which tries to rely on a mishandled epic story, i.e. the whole of TPM is a bore storywise and only includes one LS duel.

Originally posted by Sith Master X
I'm really surprised at how many people dislike ROTS here. I can understand why people don't like the first 2 (even though I love them) but ROTS was killer in my opinion, and I don't care how much CGI was used. lol Well, although I as a fan thought it was a cool/interesting/great movie, it was apperantly voted worst movie of 05 and probably not without a reason. Us as fans just aren't skeptical enough to judge properly.
Let's just keep it at that..

Who voted it worst movie?

I seem to recall it winning BEST movie at the people's choice awards.

Not a challange, just wondering.

lol, worst movie? now that's just plain stupid

Yes, it is to us because we are fans, yes fans, you heard it right.
We aren't critics, nay.. We are fans.

Just think of the before-episode-III time.. Could we have imagined people thinking that episode I and II just being odd or even stupid? No.
It's because we're fans..

Originally posted by overlord
Well, although I as a fan thought it was a cool/interesting/great movie, it was apperantly voted worst movie of 05 and probably not without a reason. Us as fans just aren't skeptical enough to judge properly.
Let's just keep it at that..


Again....

Who voted it worst movie?

Certainly not the box office, the critics (70-80 % gave 3 out of 4 stars or better) or the Peoples Choice Awards.

Again...

Not a challange...just wondering.

I DON'T KNOW, I heard it from another forum guy and I don't even care.

Originally posted by overlord
I DON'T KNOW, I heard it from another forum guy and I don't even care.



Sorry dude. Didn't mean to bug you.


Just wanted to know where that came from.

A lot of people have made very good points...here is my interpretation.

Abstract: Both the PT and the OT are excellent works of art indicative of the times in which they were created.

Lucas has always been on the cutting edge of special effects whether it was the models of the OT or the CGI of the PT. Lucas also is a very visual filmaker (which is why filming dogfights is so much fun). Special effects blockbusters like Star Wars have always been about visuals. Special effects achieve those visuals. Star Wars defined this genre. (this is not to say that star wars has no other redeeming values/main points, im just focusing on this one)

THe OT:

Thinking of Lucas as a film artist, the art you create is often influenced by the time you create it in. The late seventies/eighties saw a drastic move towards grunge industiralism. You have massive Star Destroyers, unpaited, grey, rather featureless. Large technical worlds exist, but everything is dirty and breaking down. (i.e. Milennium Falcon). This sort of deviation from typical sci-fi where everthing was plastic/stianless steel and looked like it had never been used was an artistic statement which coiencided almost perfectly with the rise of grunge artwork in the late seventies. The movies were revolutionary form a visual and cinematographic view.

The PT:
The prequels have a drastically differnet visual style from the OT. Many people attribute theis to the trasition from models/puppets to CGI. I think Lucas chose CGI for a different reason. The PT started in 1999, agian on the edge of another artistic movement, a resurgence of romanticism. Instead of Mos Eisley cantinas and remote Hoth outposts, we have the sweeping skylines of Coruscant and the lush forests of Naboo. Sleek shiny spaceships are present (look how out of place the Naboo cruiser is on Tatooine). CGI allows more freedom to create delicate structures like the solar sailer vs. the blocky snow speeders. It also creates much more visual splendor (ala end of episode III sunset) The PT was made in a differnet time, and is representative of the artistic movements of the time.

Conclusion:

The fact that Lucas's trilogies were in line with two distinct shifts in art (visual and film) is rather amazing and a credit to him as an artist. I personally find both to be distinct works of art. I love the grunge post-apocalyptic industrialism as much as the romantic feel of the new trilogy. The tools that lucas used as a filmaker enhanced his ability to enhance the atmospheric attidude of each trilogy. Coupled with the story, its obvious that the superficially happy days of the old republic fit very well with the PT style, while the very cool post apacalyptic hell that is the Empire works great in the OT. Both are excellent works of art and Its really cool to see the end of Episode II and Episode III where there are visual shifts between styles (Mustafar in Particular).

Sorry that was long...comments?

I just hated the return to Naboo and Tatooine in AotC and Geonosis sucked too actually. In the respect of an artists view, I think the prequels were a bit too realistic and lacked the atmosphere the OT had for some reason.

Hi Stun... well, I would say the 2nd instuctor is way off base with his statements and opinions. I'm not a graphic artist but my husband is. However, I was an art student all through high school and college. But that's neither here nor there. What I see, especially in Episode III is just outstanding. I found myself staring more at the backgrounds, especially when you see Anakin and Padme together in Corisant. The city, the ships moving around, all of that.... WOW. It's just unbelievable. I would give anything to step into Corisant and just stand there in awe.

Originally posted by Stun
I havent made a thread for a long time, so i hope this works. I had a long discussion with my Art Tutor who specialises in Animation and Graphics. He prefers The Prequels to the Originals in the sense that it was visually a work of art, and visually more stunning than the Originals - True, but my other tutor who is more oldstyle is also a Graphic Designer, and said that the Prequels were just plain rubbish, and as a art form the Orginals were supreme. I think it's interesting that two guys who practice the same form of art would have such conflicting views. My first tutor doesnt see the Originals as a landmark film in movie history - which i disagree with, but maybe the Prequels were meant to be viewed as 'a work of art' - infact, if you watch the entire PT as artwork, you seem to enoy it even more imho.

so the question is - Do you think the Prequels work more as a visual 'work of art' than a typical movie