zombie84 said:

The one thing I will give TPM much credit for is it's design and imagination. As Roger Ebert said, there really is this genuine sense of wonder in every scene. I mean, the story and the characters aren't very imaginative, unfortunately, but the world itself is quite captivating. I guess this is complimenting the art department rather than Lucas himself, but just visually, the film is to this day quite breathtaking, even if sometimes the CG is a bit hokey. Actually, there is something weirdly charming to the sorta-perfect-but-not-quite CG and digital composites, compared to the slicker, more seamless stuff of today, maybe like how the early model and stopmotion work has its own charm. It has a character that the other films lack, and part of it I think is that it's still archaic in some ways--shot on film, still had big sets (Theed hanger), lots of big location shooting (Mos Espa), more model work than ROTJ, wasn't finished digitally but photochemically, filmed in the old English studios rather then the new Australian ones, etc.

Maybe when people say it has a more OT feel, this is subliminally influencing them.

Nice point with the CG.

Donno how it's with you or others, but my perception of SFX is somewhat similar to how I look at dialogue and plot:
There are all kinds of different levels of realism, from almost completely believable, to somewhat too perfect and otherwordly, to fantastical, to corny, to comically cheap absurd. 

Suspension of disblief can be bent and regulated according to the material, and just as I can, say, buy a world that's kinda like ours but with fantastical elements, I can buy a look that's aesthetic and kinda realistic, but still obviously fake.

Most of AOTC probably falls into that category: the graphics are shiny, pretty and even, and ultimately recognizeable as fake - but still, they're colorful, pretty, "realistic" in terms of general movement, lightning, texture etc., so that I can easily suspend my disbelief and perceive it as a "shiny prettified reality", just like laid-back, but structured dialogue (gotta love Alien on that).

The only environment I truly despise in that movie, is the Jedi Temple.

Kamino is a somewhat funny one - the inside looks dreamy and surreal like in an alien abduction experience (which is what they were obviously going for, judging by the looks of the aliens etc. - not that I found this idea to have made much sense in the context), the outside looks like an evil, stormy fortress of evil from a Tim Burton movie or something.
 
But the very moment you're okay with it and agree to accept this Kamino place as a somewhat surreal cartoon place (they're Cloners, after all) - they shoot the scenes on the landing platforms on a set with real, artificial rain, and it looks completely realistic :D

Fuck you, Jorge. 

none said:

wwdarth wrote: My biggest problem with TPM (besides the obvious objections mentioned above), is that the characters were impossible to relate to.

I always thought this was on purpose.  To show how the Republic got corrupt by having those in charge being relatively stoic and unable to relate to the problems right in front of them.  Much like how people react to real world politicians.  They are often seen as saying one thing to get in power then doing another.  Where I think the PT lacked is there's no sense of the 'General Public'.  Everything is warrior/army/police types up against politicos.  There's no common man represented.  But having this dynamic between the PT and OT builds the story.  

 

Non Sense.

It's okay if you've got a few boring politicians in a few political scenes (even though a good chunk of real politicians actually have personality and entertainment value - so don't overdo it with the "stoic" part) - but having EVERY SINGLE MAIN CHARACTER behave in that way?

Padme is supposed to be a proactive, caring person - how come she's probably the most boring and emotionless out of all the main characters?
The government at Naboo is probably the most stoic, uptight group of people ever put on cinema, certainly out the Prequel Politicians... does THEIR apathy lead to the Empire, as well? What's up with this uptight, tradition-hugging Geisha nonsense?

It's interesting to note that, in the OT, while the obvious intention was to portray the rebels as human and diverse, and the Imperials as uniform and bland, NONE OF THE NAZI OFFICERS IN THOSE MOVIES WAS BORING, or the same, in the slightest.

I like me some stoic empty blanket characters in some genres - the old Mission: Impossible series comes to mind. The single agents were somewhat memorable, but they were basically just doing their job the whole episode, and the less actual emotions, inter-character relationships or ironic smirks after fooling another enemy pawn, the usually better.

In this case? Nah. 

Moth3r said:

... 1990s sci-fi film, heavily laden with CGI special effects but enjoyable and entertaining nonetheless.

See also Independence Day (1996), Starship Troopers (1997) and Men in Black (1997).

Discuss.

Nah.

Independence Day is cheesy and stereotypical, but a giant pile of silly fun. It's got Willi Schmidt, Jeff Nerdbloom and a wacky Jew with a beard, for Christ's sake.

Men in Black... WHAT? You troll (and forum administrator). 

none said:

twooffour wrote: Padme is supposed to be a proactive, caring person - how come she's probably the most boring and emotionless out of all the main characters?

She's proactive, caring and semi-emotional as a Senator.  She like most of the characters in the PT is emotionally stunted as an individual.  So when she's in the Senate pleading the case about the invasion of Naboo.  Portman acts.  The scene works.  (until you attempt to figure out why no one had a camera and took a picture as proof of the invasion)  Padme for most of these movies is shown dealing with interpersonal relationships which she's not good at.  She's been playing politico all her life all these characters have.  They've been locked in a system and it leads their personal life to faulter.  This is a guess, like the camera thing above, you set up a logic system and something simple breaks the system.  and there's just so much time to spend trying to rationalize it all.

but having EVERY SINGLE MAIN CHARACTER behave in that way?

George is making some kind of statement.  Part anti-organized religionous indoctrination, part anti-life time politicians.  Not saying this is right, correct or truth, or if I agree or not.  Just a guess.

Um, okay. With that same logic, they could've made Han Solo a complete bore, and the reasoning would be: "well, he just happens to be a rather boring person - smuggles crap for a living. He's bored. What, is that unbelievable?"

Luke was pretty much fish-out-of-the-water when he was suddenly thrown from a relatively dull, routine, maybe somewhat adventuorous life as a farmer on a desert with speeder bikes and cool pilot friends, into an outright WAR ZONE. 
Hey, how about you throw some average factory worker into the enemy base with a bunch of heavily armed fanatics at every corner, bet they'll act as light-hearted and laid-back and Luke does throughout the first movie.


Basically, if you write a story in a universe full of dull bores, you'll get a boring movie. And I don't see how any of that aids the movie. 

I'll admit that Amidala's speech at the Senate was quite cool, though. Nowhere near Van Damme's in "Streetfighter", but hey. 

generalfrevious said:

No really. I think TPM is a surrealist film in the vein as Luis Bunel. But the problem is that in a science fiction movie, you need exposition to what is going on and how that universe works in order for the film to succeed. TPM does not explain and is governed by no logic- hence a surrealist film.

Um what, are you kidding?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in TPM, is in any way "surreal" (well, maybe that scene where Qui-Gon meditates in the lightsaber duel) - it's a down-to-earth space adventure movie with lazy exposition and convenient plot devices.

It takes more than a lazy script to pass for "surrealist", sorry.