Originally posted by: CO

Now monetarily, I know it is cheaper to use CG, and it would be too expensive to shoot the PT with models and sets, but in saving money they sacrificed in the long term the quality of the shot looking more realistic. The OT really holds its worth by just looking more realistic than the PT, just my opinion.

I agree entirely about the cartoony look of the CGI, but is it REALLY cheaper to use? If you haven't already, watch the 'scene in a minute' docu about part of the Mustaphar duel on the ROTS DVD. Its been discussed in another thread but the sheer number of people involved just to create that short sequence in CGI was ridiculous (and not all of it was- they filmed live volcano elements, still had to do some miniatures to get the lava flow effects exactly correct, etc.). And I have to believe that ALL those people cost a LOT of money. The same script in a more budget constricted production or in the hands of a more adaptive and/or creative filmmaker would have found ways to convey the same ideas without the obsessive attention to details that go by in a matter of seconds. Think of it like watching a play on stage- possibly detailed but sometimes minimal sets but the audience is forced into suspension of disbelief by skilled and powerful actors and script. That's why I still feel the most powerful scene in the PT was the intercut images of Anakin and Padme each pondering their fates with or without each other. The actors and the music told the story- not words or CGI (despite the obligatory Coruscant busy skies in the background).

So yeah I can understand no nominations for visual effects for ROTS. You might as well start handing out Oscars to XBox games. Much in the same way that films like 'Chicken Little' weren't nominated for visual effects. Nor should they have been really.