- Time
- Post link
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20060131.html
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20060131.html
ROTS and the Oscars! — Page 2
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publicity/news20060131.html
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
ROTS coulda been a contendah, instead of a bum which is what it is.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
- Time
- Post link
I wasn't expecting anything big, as the Academy has always turned it's nose up at Star Wars. I was really hoping against hope for an Ian McDiarmid Best Supporting Actor nomination, even if he didn't win, if only to acknowledge the transformation of the character he's been playing since 1983. And the fact he really put himself out there for this one with all the action scenes.
Stunned it didn't get nominated for visual effects, sound or any other technical awards, since these are the guys who all but invented digital technology and with every installment are determined to push the art to it's limits. Some elements are obviously cgi, but if you read the "making-of" books you find that there are things you don't even realize started out as nothing more than bluescreen.
Like Palpatine and Bail Organa on the balcony at the end of AOTC, did you know the two actors were the only real thing in the shot? Everything (and everyone) else were seperate elements that were composited in. Or the foyer to the opera in ROTS, none of it was there. It's those things that you don't think about that are so well done, it's just amazing to think it started out as a shot of Hayden Christensen climbing up a blue staircase. And I really thought Yoda was leaps and bounds more realistic in ROTS than he was in AOTC. It's a shame, considering this one was the best the Prequels had to offer.
--InfoDroid
- Time
- Post link
Like Palpatine and Bail Organa on the balcony at the end of AOTC, did you know the two actors were the only real thing in the shot? Everything (and everyone) else were seperate elements that were composited in. Or the foyer to the opera in ROTS, none of it was there. It's those things that you don't think about that are so well done, it's just amazing to think it started out as a shot of Hayden Christensen climbing up a blue staircase. And I really thought Yoda was leaps and bounds more realistic in ROTS than he was in AOTC. It's a shame, considering this one was the best the Prequels had to offer.
Text
I do agree that there are some amazing shots that they can do with CG that could have never been done in the OT, but in some ways because of the CG it just doesn't look as real as sets or models. The grand shots of Coruscant of Naboo benefit from CG and make the PT look beautiful sometimes, but I think when you get to the small images, sets work so much better and just look more real.
I was watching SW & ESB the other weekend and then comparing them to the PT movies, at times the PT looks so cartoonish, even though they do a great job of making look almost real, it still doesn't beat using sets. For the space battles between ROTS and ROTJ, I just think the ROTS space battle looks too cartoonish at times too, models are just more believable.
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.
- Time
- Post link
(sigh)...........They sure don't make 'em like they used to.
- Time
- Post link
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.
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.
- Time
- Post link
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. Text
I wasn't positive it costs less to use CGI on the SW movies, I just assumed since it was coming out of Lucas's pocket, I guess he would use the most cost-effective way, but your guess is as good as mine. Let me ask you, does it take less time to use CG rather than using stop motion models?
It is sad cause as much as CG looks really good sometimes, my biggest beef is it just looks cartoonish alot of times, and I think 10-20 years from now, those effects won't hold up as well as the OT models & sets do.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: CO
I wasn't positive it costs less to use CGI on the SW movies, I just assumed since it was coming out of Lucas's pocket, I guess he would use the most cost-effective way, but your guess is as good as mine. Let me ask you, does it take less time to use CG rather than using stop motion models?
Depends on the sequence I suppose really. In theory (one of my favorite statements!) CGI gives you more control to make changes but the overall time spent designing, animating and rendering... hmmm- probably is pretty darn close to model building and shooting.
It is sad cause as much as CG looks really good sometimes, my biggest beef is it just looks cartoonish alot of times, and I think 10-20 years from now, those effects won't hold up as well as the OT models & sets do.
I wasn't positive it costs less to use CGI on the SW movies, I just assumed since it was coming out of Lucas's pocket, I guess he would use the most cost-effective way, but your guess is as good as mine. Let me ask you, does it take less time to use CG rather than using stop motion models?
Depends on the sequence I suppose really. In theory (one of my favorite statements!) CGI gives you more control to make changes but the overall time spent designing, animating and rendering... hmmm- probably is pretty darn close to model building and shooting.
It is sad cause as much as CG looks really good sometimes, my biggest beef is it just looks cartoonish alot of times, and I think 10-20 years from now, those effects won't hold up as well as the OT models & sets do.
The color choices I feel are a lot of what's to blame for the cartoonish feel/look. Colors that are too strong or too unnatural looking colors set off cues in our brains that the images 'aren't real'.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: greencapt
The color choices I feel are a lot of what's to blame for the cartoonish feel/look. Colors that are too strong or too unnatural looking colors set off cues in our brains that the images 'aren't real'.
The color choices I feel are a lot of what's to blame for the cartoonish feel/look. Colors that are too strong or too unnatural looking colors set off cues in our brains that the images 'aren't real'.
Text
I kinda agree with you on that statement, I think Lucas uses too much brightness in his colors in ROTS, and it just comes as fake that way. I notice the color red is very fake looking, cause it kinda sticks out in scenes like Palps office. The one CG I do like from the PT is the whole outside part of the Kamino world. It is just very cool looking with the rain, and I know that couldn't have been done 20 years ago.
I think the most cartoonish part is one shot at the beginning during the space battle in ROTS where the clonetrooper are shooting this huge gun out at the spaceships, and it just looks so damn fake. I remember they showed it in one of the ROTS trailers too, and nothing in that sequence feels real. Then I watch the original SW when the attack on the death star and you see the stormtroopers shooting those big guns at the rebels, and cause it is done on a set it just looks so much more believable.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: CO
I think the most cartoonish part is one shot at the beginning during the space battle in ROTS where the clonetrooper are shooting this huge gun out at the spaceships, and it just looks so damn fake. I remember they showed it in one of the ROTS trailers too, and nothing in that sequence feels real.
I think the most cartoonish part is one shot at the beginning during the space battle in ROTS where the clonetrooper are shooting this huge gun out at the spaceships, and it just looks so damn fake. I remember they showed it in one of the ROTS trailers too, and nothing in that sequence feels real.
But where else would he have worked in the 'Wilhelm Scream'?
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
To me, Lucas and Co. all too often tried to bite off more than they could chew (let's face it, the '99 Jar-Jar experiment was disastrous for a character that needed to be photorealistic) or simply were too lazy and derelict to realize they were foisting visual crap up on the screen (see Yoda in TPM). Deficiencies in visual effects can be glossed over when the story is good; unfortunately, in the case of the prequels, we were subject to some pretty vapid tales. The visual effects became probably THE biggest draw, and so the mistakes and limitations get magnified.
Years ago Lucas was the alpha and omega of special effects movie producers, and there wasn't really even a second place. But other studios learned fast, while Lucas lost complete track of what's important, believable, and even possible in terms of visual effects (to say nothing of the story). The prequels should have been the modern benchmarks for all effects-heavy movies in years to come. Instead they are a somewhat disappointing collection of visual hits and misses.
The snub is justified.
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call to ILM to not churn out crap and be competitive. It used to be that ILM in te credits meant good special effects, but now I approach it with reservations. I never realized how much ILM lost their edge until The Hulk. Before the movie, ILM did a presentation at Wondercon, bragging how good the Hulk was going to look. Not onlydid the movie suck, the main attraction wasn't believable.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
- Time
- Post link
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!
- Time
- Post link
As I was saying, ROTS was a disappointing film. It had so much potential, but failed to reach it in so many ways. People here seem to be upset with Brokeback Mountain being nominated for so much, but face it folks, subject matter aside, it's a great film. It deserves all of it's nominations. As far as the technical awards go, I think King Kong is much more visually impressive than ROTS (Hell, as far as I'm concerned, the original 1933 Kong is more impressive than ROTS). The reason the the prequals are so disappointing comes down to something that Lucas forgot he said back in 1983 (in From Star Wars To Jedi: The Making Of A Saga) "The special effects are not the story. The Story is the story. A special effect without a good story is a pretty boring thing" I guess Georgie Boy didn't realize then when he made the OT, he used the FX to ENHANCE the films, and with the prequals, the FX WERE the films. When all you do is shoot against a blue (or green) screen and use minimal set pieces for virtually every shot, it's hard to think of the special effects as Special.
I realize that I may have been rambling again, but that's my 2 cents, and I stand buy it.
Anakin was an OLD MAN when he died, therefore his ghost should be old too AND WITH EYEBROWS
- Time
- Post link
And welcome to the boards!
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Scotty Balls
Then of course we have the 2 Ewok films, the Droids & Ewoks cartoons, the prequlas & the clone wars cartoons. Sorry to ramble....
Then of course we have the 2 Ewok films, the Droids & Ewoks cartoons, the prequlas & the clone wars cartoons. Sorry to ramble....
...and the holiday special!
- Time
- Post link
As bad as it is, I actually like the Holiday Special. In fact, I enjoy it a helluva lot more than ROTJ or the Prequals.
Anakin was an OLD MAN when he died, therefore his ghost should be old too AND WITH EYEBROWS
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I want to delete my account
LUKE: Dad, where are your eyebrows?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_S6UgkQk0
- Time
- Post link
2 years in a row, nominated for a few, won a couple, but not really cleaning up. 3rd time lucky, wins everything it's nominated for. PATHETIC... 3 wasn't even the best one (as it's a trilogy, it's all one film). It's absolutely worthless behaviour that shows just how ridiculous the 'Academy' is.
I'm inclined to the that the Academy looked at LOTR the same way I do. LOTR is ONE movie cut into 3 parts because of the length. Tolkein intended LOTR to be published as 1 novel. It was published as 3 seperate books because it was too long to be just 1 book. And just for the record (IMHO) LOTR completely blew away the prequals in EVERY WAY. Better script, better direction, better SPFX & better performances from the cast.
Agree or disagree with me if you want, It makes no difference. As far as I'm concerned, starting with his work on LOTR & confirmed by King Kong (yes, I know that he's done other films before LOTR), Peter Jackson has become the filmmaker that Luc-a$$ always wished he COULD be.
Anakin was an OLD MAN when he died, therefore his ghost should be old too AND WITH EYEBROWS
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Invader Jenny
The Oscars is Hollywoods way of patting themselves on the back for a "job well done." The fact that Hollywood won't even acknowledge ROTS for anything says a lot. Not even Hollywood liked it.
The Oscars is Hollywoods way of patting themselves on the back for a "job well done." The fact that Hollywood won't even acknowledge ROTS for anything says a lot. Not even Hollywood liked it.
It also shows their self-loving arrogance.