logo Sign In

Post #1199175

Author
Ryan-SWI
Parent topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1199175/action/topic#1199175
Date created
22-Apr-2018, 7:59 AM

I don’t think stills are a fair portrayal. I’m not going to deny there’s some crappy effects across almost almost every film, but they typically look a lot worse when screencapped.

ray_afraid said:

There are hardly any environments in AOTC or ROTS that look real to me.

Naboo looked perfectly real. Episode I was a giant set. Episode II was filmed in Italy with a few background altercations to look more ‘sci-fi.’ The establishing shots and the grass battle in Episode I are obviously completely CGI, but other than that I think they’re fine. Tatooine also looks great in Episode I, Episode II has a few more wonky CGI shots like Anakin’s speeder scene, but overall the actual locations look great, as they are actual locations.

There are also hardly any environments in AOTC or ROTS that needed to be 100% effects, which is what makes them horrible from any perspective.

Um… Kamino, Mustafar, Coruscant?..

Geonosis didn’t have to be fully digital, I’ll give you that. However a water, lava and city planet aren’t really laying around in any of Earth’s biomes. And Mustafar and Coruscant both actually use a massive amount of both miniatures and real footage (lava, volcanoes, in the case of Mustafar).

As for the space battles, obviously they’re going to be CGI; even the new films are fully CGI for their space battles.

The ST actually has much more CGI than any of the PT film; the issue is that CGI of that scope back in the early 2000s was widely unheard of. As such there was a lot of growing pains and ILM was still trying to figure out how to properly work with the technology and make it look convincing. So all these practical effects, sets, and real locations get overlooked because the CGI at the time just wasn’t 100% ready yet. Not saying that magically makes a lot of the CGI good, just that there is a reason.