Revenge of the Sith- Oscars? (Merged)

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.

well, you're allowed your opinion...

I just don't agree that AOTC had 'many small problems' and that 'overall the show was really well done'... the fact is it could have been better (a lot better), and it should have been. I guess people just have different tastes.

I don't think Greedo looked terrible or Jabba... they looked a hell of a lot more real than some of the CG stuff that's coming out in these movies.

And when it comes down to it I really don't care if they use CG, miniatures, models, costumes or sets, it's whether it looks realistic or not... if it's crap (yes, I said crap) I don't like it... I guess I just find CG less tastefull.

Bullet time invented for Batman and Robin? Lost in Space? Which versions of those movies did you see? Nonetheless, the original Matrix had great fx.

Let me next clear something up. I am not trying to sound smart by saying CG looks fake. There's no point in doing that. I am just not a fan of CG. I am a perfectionist, and as I mentioned, I also make films.

"Crap" describes a few things, and I will continue to use it for the term for the prequel trilogy's fx. I'm sorry, but its how I feel.

I'd say AOTC had more than a FEW minor fx problems. I don't want to go through the movie, explaining the parts I do actually like and think look good..because they are few, but as a major sequence I thought that the chase over coruscant was very well done.

I hate to say it, but our tastes are about as far apart as possible. TPM ha some of the best fx to ever be put on film? I can't believe you even think that, but I think its far from it. I actually thought overall, TPM had better fx than AOTC though, because they actually built sets, and costumes, and some things, while in AOTC basically everything was fake. Even talking CG, TPM is hardly a great achievement. I could name many better fx movies in modern times that use CG:

even Jurassic Park, Lost World, A.I., Minority Report, Sleepy Hollow, T2, even Harry Potter 1 and 2, and definately 3, even the Spider Man films, the LOTR trilogy, the 1st Matrix, even the 2nd and 3rd by far better than the prequel Star Wars movies, not to mention even any Pixar movie which is really sad.

And yes, when there's so much bad CGI, like AOTC it does slightly ruin the film for me. Greedo was a simple costume, nothing great I don't think, but I didn't think it was bad either. I myself also hate Ewoks. If your referring to the real Jabba, I am surprised, because that was a great puppet/animatronic. The CG Jabbas wasn't too good.

And I did/do keep an open mind for movies, even the Star Wars prequels, and why wouldn't I? I like Star Wars. It's probably that because the new ones I think have such bad CG, that it slightly ruins my experience for me....but not to the extent that I don't like the prequel films as it might sound by now. I do like them. I just don't understand why some people find them great.

And I wouldn't say the fx in AOTC ruined it for me. I just think it could have been such a better movie, and fx movie otherwise, among with better dialouge and acting occasionally. I mean lines like "i hate sand." and that whole scene had horrid dialouge, not to mention all the romance scenes were worse than watching a soap opera. But let me then say that I find that its a very enjoyable movie, with flaws definately.

I anticipate ROTS because I think the story is finally what I've been waiting for as a fan, the fx do look improved from all the pics I've seen and trailers. But nonetheless, I think having a better story this time around (I've read the script and its very good) will help quite a few things...

And again Dodo, you summed up my feelings pretty much. I agree that I don't mind CGI if its done well.

Just when I was starting to like this thread...a hate monger shows up.

Originally posted by hunchy
And again Dodo, you summed up my feelings pretty much. I agree that I don't mind CGI if its done well.

😄

Originally posted by tlbauerle
Just when I was starting to like this thread...a hate monger shows up.

I hate monger huh? Did you not read my whole post. I LIKE the PT. They have flaws. You act as if its a sin to point out mistakes with the PT, and yet "the OT is slow and boring, and there is no action or emotion" seriously, new fans...

"I don't mind CGI if its done well."

I think I also could settle for that.

But I quite frankly see no point in discussing with people asking ME which movies I saw while stating they think Pixar films "looked better" (which can only mean technically) then TPM. 😉

I still have to figure out the global "Anti-CGI" thing going on (the same with Hulk, Van Helsing and others)

I think it might come down to poor direction.
That directors are not experienced enough to know how to use CGI.
Many outright admit that it's all new to them.
They think they can "do everthing these days", they sort of want to push a button and make things happen. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.
There are already a few directors who really know what to do and how to use things, Spielberg comes to my mind, James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

I think 20 years from now people will look back at this time with all the 'crazy' experimental phases, when filmschools teach how to use CGI like they teach to use diffrent lenses.
Until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride and you sit back and enjoy the bashing.

No hard feelings.

very well said... I completely agree 😄

Originally posted by Pogel
"I don't mind CGI if its done well."

I think I also could settle for that.

But I quite frankly see no point in discussing with people asking ME which movies I saw while stating they think Pixar films "looked better" (which can only mean technically) then TPM. 😉

I still have to figure out the global "Anti-CGI" thing going on (the same with Hulk, Van Helsing and others)

I think it might come down to poor direction.
That directors are not experienced enough to know how to use CGI.
Many outright admit that it's all new to them.
They think they can "do everthing these days", they sort of want to push a button and make things happen. Obviously, it doesn't work that way.
There are already a few directors who really know what to do and how to use things, Spielberg comes to my mind, James Cameron and Ridley Scott.

I think 20 years from now people will look back at this time with all the 'crazy' experimental phases, when filmschools teach how to use CGI like they teach to use diffrent lenses.
Until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride and you sit back and enjoy the bashing.

No hard feelings.

Yes very well put. I very much agree. Actually, I myself, will probably get knocked for ssaying so, but I actually liked Van Helsing and thought it had good fx. The Hulk I thought had pretty good CG as well.

Spielberg definately knows how to use his CG. Hate to say it, but I don't think Lucas does. He uses it as as tool and to make things easy. He doesn't even really direct according even to his actors. He merely says "faster", "slower", or "that's good". He's more involved in how its done, and that its done according to script. Thus, he should have been a producer/writer, not the director of these films. If only he'd let Spielberg do it...

Originally posted by hunchy
I hate monger huh? Did you not read my whole post. I LIKE the PT. They have flaws. You act as if its a sin to point out mistakes with the PT, and yet "the OT is slow and boring, and there is no action or emotion" seriously, new fans...

I wasn't talking about you... 😛

Haha, my bad. It was right after my post, so I assumed that. Were you referring to Pogel?