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?
Re: The Prequels: Better as a work of Art than a Movie?
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