Ithilgore said:
Mrebo said:
Bingowings said:
The video essay is too simplistic.
Agreed with much in your post. I do think the extensive CGI is the issue being complained about when people talk about too much cleanliness. It's more an abundance of fake stuff that looked fake. And Padme's ship was silly! Didn't have the iconic status they must have intended.
The big problem with the "too much CG" is Lucas did too much, too early. He made most of the sets, stunts, creatures, etc CG in 1999, 2002, 2005, way too early for that amount of CG to look good. Avatar was the first one to have primarily CG sets that looked real. The PT now looks embarrassingly bad in many spots and it's not even that old.
The ST won't have such a problem with CG sets, they'll look more convincing, and JJ Abrahms uses a lot of physical sets anyway.
A lot of what people assume to be CGI in the PT is in fact a old fashioned models
(the same errors are made with the Alien in Alien 3 which was only CGI for a couple of shots).
The problem with the PT could be that these elements were integrated with low quality (and now dated) CGI so closely that whole shots were given a generally plastic, fake look.
We know which parts of the SE are real or models so we can tell which bits have been scribbled on.
With the PT we never had the luxury of a 1970's/80's edition so it all looks like a computer game.
Green screen usage in general is more of an offender than CGI.
Actors should be in actual physical environments whenever possible, in the PT they were often against green screens when they didn't need to.
Prometheus may have been terribly written but it looked more realistic on the whole than the PT because it used less green screen.