Hello again!
QUOTE (Mnesymone @ Jun 18 2005, 12:31 PM)
A lot of people prefer the PT because of the effects - which is fairly lame.
The effects are the last thing you should judge a film on - effects are used to bring about the suspension of disbelief integral to filmmaking, the best effects are the ones you never even see or realise they are effects
People say this a lot about effects but I think it only applies to certain situations. If you are watching a movie and a huge dragon shows up and begins to attack the main character then you know that it is an effect of some kind. The artists have no chance to succeed by these criteria whether they utilise puppets or CGI, no matter how photorealistic. However such commonly employed techniques as digital backgrounds, crowd duplication, removing overly prominent nasal hair in post - these are all going to qualify as "effects you never even see or realise they are effects" by there very nature. Doesn't make them particularly great IMO.
QUOTE
- Whenever I see the sandcrawler or the Executor I think - there is the sandcrawler, there is the Executor... when I see Anakin's fall from the speeder in AOTC I think - well they've got Hayden dangling on wires over a blue screen and they've filled in a computer image to create the image of Anakin falling from a speeder.
Well I think a large part of the problem with effects today is not so much that so many are done with computers but that everyone knows they are done with computers. In days gone by people might see an effect and wonder out loud "How did they do that?". Nowadays a movie watching public who has seen plenty of DVD special features will know it was CGI. Often times even when it wasn't CG. (AOTC and ROTS had more miniature work than any of the OT films for example) The effects often look better but the magic is gone and now everyones a critic.
QUOTE
While say - Batman or Terminator occasionally has problems with outdated effects - the stop-motion animation of the Terminator chassis at the end of the movie and Gotham City issues with the integration of the miniature with the set and gradually the films impact lessens you can still enjoy the movie and the story... TPM's effects are dated now -
This is true. Watched TPM before ROTS and was shocked at how poorly rendered and composited the creatures running through the forest just before the introduction of almighty Jar-Jar were as compared to what we are used to seeing. But when I saw the film in 99 I would have merely sat and stared in wonder or not noticed at all. Watto seems to hold up pretty well however for the most part. The Yoda puppet is still ghastly.
QUOTE
the integrations are poorly done, the images lack the texture of 'real' things but once that goes all thats left is the story and the schmacting.
Eventually very few people will enjoy the prequels as the effects fade in comparison to other movies out there - even on an effects standard Attack of the Clones is no match for The Lord of the Rings... compare Yoda to Gollum - where Yoda has limited facial expressions, obviously artificial response to light and darkness and is badly integrated into the scenery, Gollum looks extraordinarily genuine, particularly under natural light.
Well as to Yodas facial expressions he is a CG recreation of apuppet with very limited facial expressions. The AOTC "Puppets to Pixels" feature made it clear how careful they were to try and make it look "real" whilst not clashing with the rubbery puppet character established in ESB. As to Yoda compared to Gollum I think they are pretty hard to tell apart technically. Yoda looks pretty good for a green dude forced to blend into the vivdly coloured world of AOTC whereas Gollum is a greyish-mottled character existing in a highl desaturated, occasionally almost sepia toned environment. I think the real difference between the two is in the dramatic weight of their respective roles rather than any great technical advance.