haljordan28
This user is offline.
aside from the awful scripts and too much cgi and plot holes one of the things that really upset me with the PT films were they looked too different from the OT films. the PT was shot digital and it looked more bright and crisp so I was thinking could lucas have gotten some of the old cameras he used to film empire or return of the jedi? If so they would have tied in more perfect with the OT film as they would have looked the same.
Bingowings
This user is offline.
Magister Pontifex MaximusTo be honest to these eyes the PT films have a more grouped feel to them than the OT films in terms of cinematography.
ESB was composed with more deliberate care and attention than ANH (which has more energetic whimsical framing).
ROTJ has some of both approaches and some beautiful shots but it's also got quite a few shots which seemed to have been just chucked together with very little care, attention, rough energy or wit.
In the PT if you compare scenes set in the same location or similar locations, like with like, they all feel the same. A senate scene, for example looks pretty much the same in TPM as it does in ROTS in a way that even X-Wing cockpit shots don't across all three OT films.
That hasn't as much to do with the cameras used but more to do with compositional ethos of the film makers involved.
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightThe OT and TPM were both shot on film. But film is not like digital in that the cameras don't really matter; they don't determine what the picture looks like. With digital, the sensor is in the camera and this determines what the image will look like and the characteristics it has, but film cameras are really nothing but motors to run the film through. It is the lens and film stock that determines the image characteristics instead. So using the same cameras wouldn't mean anything except that they are shooting on film; TPM was shot on film and it didn't make a huge difference. Part of the reason is because each shot is digitally scanned and digitally altered with so much CG.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
Anchorhead
This user is offline.
Hand Of JudgmentI agree with Bingo and Zombie. If Lucas had wanted the prequels to start off somewhat matching the originals, he could have come a lot closer than he did. Digital can be manipulated to have all sorts of looks - muted, saturated, washed-out, grey scale, warm, cool, grainy, etc.
Instead, he went with what he prefers - style over substance. An over-saturated, surreal cartoon look and then he chose to try and force the originals to match the prequels. As the technology advances, so do the releases of the originals. That's why we get a new version of Star Wars every few years - Star Wars 4.3, Service Pack 2.
I haven't seen this film, so maybe it looks better when watching it, but just looking at this screencap it has that cartoon look I was talking about. The colors are weirdly saturated, the lighting seems strange, and people look like they aren't actually touching the ground. It looks nothing like reality.

Compared to this picture from the original trilogy;

This seems much more real. It has a.....there's a...it's.....I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
Crimson. Eleven. Delight. Petrichor.
Alexrd
This user is offline.
Anchorhead said:
and people look like they aren't actually touching the ground. It looks nothing like reality.
People are actually touching the ground because the ground is real. :P
![]()
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightThe extras aren't though.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyPfft. Leia's not touching the ground either.
Alexrd
This user is offline.
zombie84 said:
The extras aren't though.
Realism is missing on every Star Wars movie. Be it CGI or puppets.
![]()
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightThat's nice, but Anchorhead said it looked like the people weren't touching the ground, and that's because 50% of the "people" in there are composites and CG characters.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
Bingowings
This user is offline.
Magister Pontifex MaximusAnchorhead posted two pictures?
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyWouldn't have been much of a comparison if he only posted one.
Bingowings
This user is offline.
Magister Pontifex MaximusThere is no comparison.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda
This user is offline.
legendary but little-known Jedi MasterAlexrd said:
Realism is missing on every Star Wars movie. Be it CGI or puppets.
I disagree. The puppets were really there in the frame during filming, along with the background, buildings or foliage, etc. In the PT, many of the characters and background are CGI which was not in the green screen frame during filming at all but was added later. So whereas the puppets aren't actually living creatures, they are at least there during filming. And in my opinion, the difference in realism is obvious. Particularly on Tatooine, which in SW looks like a real desert town with real dust, real people wandering around, real dirty vehicles, real wind, real daylight, etc., presumably because they all really were real when filmed.
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyPT Tatooine was also shot in Tunisia. Just saying...
Krakatoa
This user is offline.
You can learn a lot from Lydia!I actually think 2&3 look kinda muddy. Especially watching them in HD on TV, the CGI looks kinda lo-res. I mean in the OT you can see the brush strokes in the background, but still...
And I liked the differences in cinematography between the originals. Made every chapter seem new.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda
This user is offline.
legendary but little-known Jedi MasterTV's Frink said:
PT Tatooine was also shot in Tunisia. Just saying...
And SE (of course), but both with CGI added to reduce realism.
Anchorhead
This user is offline.
Hand Of JudgmentBingowings said:
There is no comparison.
No, there isn't. My post was serious but the screencap portion was more of an attempt at a light moment - start the comparison discussion, post two screencaps, then become distracted by how shapely Carrie Fisher was 30 years ago. I seem to have missed the mark.
Here are my original caps before I decided to lighten the mood.
Outdoors in the originals - detail, color, shadows, texture, depth, perspective, etc is all much more real looking - because it is real. If it's a puppet, it still exists in the physical world. Even when there is a matte painting in the shot, it still looks much more realistic.





On the other hand, the prequels look like cartoons and video games. No matter how much technology Lucas throws at them, they still look exactly like what they are - computer drawings made to emulate reality. Again, I haven't watched them, so I don't know what the motion experience is, but they look fucking terrible. Visually, they look completely unrelated to the originals.



Crimson. Eleven. Delight. Petrichor.
none
This user is offline.
then become distracted by how shapely Carrie Fisher was 30 years ago.


She's got curves upstairs:

Agree the PT/OT don't look related, and i've lost the grasp of english to figure out why. It's the Uncanny Valley but for Everything. Even though I understand the sets are suppose to have flat floors, (the Arena/landing facility as you've chosen) but it's that computer infinitely flat that's just unrealistic. Not impossible, but unlikely.
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyAnchorhead said:
No, there isn't. My post was serious but the screencap portion was more of an attempt at a light moment - start the comparison discussion, post two screencaps, then become distracted by how shapely Carrie Fisher was 30 years ago. I seem to have missed the mark.
I thought you succeeded.
DuracellEnergizer
This user is offline.
Ce n'est pas DuracellEnergizerAnd to think that there are actual people out there who consider the CG Yoda more lifelike than the puppet. It's pure, unfiltered madness.
God doesn't think in terms of black or white - or even shades of gray - but in big, bright, bold hues of blue and orange.
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyI prefer the CG Yoda to the TPM puppet. But that puppet sucked.
The sad thing is they only did CG so Yoda could jump around like an idiot. If you don't need him to do that, he can still be a puppet like in TPM. But why did they change the puppet in the first place?
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
DuracellEnergizer
This user is offline.
Ce n'est pas DuracellEnergizerTV's Frink said:
But why did they change the puppet in the first place?
Same reason they didn't put belt rings on the PT lightsabers - apathy for continuity.
God doesn't think in terms of black or white - or even shades of gray - but in big, bright, bold hues of blue and orange.
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyBelt rings?
DuracellEnergizer
This user is offline.
Ce n'est pas DuracellEnergizerThe lightsabers in the OT had rings on the pommels with which it fasten to the belt with. The lightsabers in the PT didn't have these; they were attached to the belt by magnet instead.
God doesn't think in terms of black or white - or even shades of gray - but in big, bright, bold hues of blue and orange.
TV's Frink
This user is online.
Ointment FlyDuracellEnergizer said:
The lightsabers in the OT had rings on the pommels with which it fasten to the belt with. The lightsabers in the PT didn't have these; they were attached to the belt by CG instead.
Fixed ;-)