Ryan McAvoy said:
OBI-WAN37 said:
Okay, so I've posted edits embedded in your quotes under each image for each criticism you make. Most of my argument centers around the fact that given the huge amount of locations they used in the prequel trilogy (unlike the original trilogy), even with the budget of a star wars movie I'm guessing it would have cost way too much to model absolutely everything, and also, you said concerning blue-screening in the time of the original trilogy, "there was literally no other way this could be achieved at the time" the same goes for lots of stuff you criticize in the prequel trilogy: aliens with long necks and completely different anatomy from humans that make it literally impossible for actors to portray even with the best makeup. You seem to be throwing absolutely everything that even barely qualifies as an argument at me, however I will admit that you do make a couple of good points. Regardless, the prequel trilogy, with or without too much CGI, are fantastic films.
Your arguments underneath those photos I reposted above are frankly laughable so I can't really summon up the energy needed to respond to them all. But the gist of your answers seemed to be...
"Yes I'll admit there was a sh*t load of CGI in the PT when practical photography and models could have been used but Lucas and McCallum were too cheap and lazy to bother, which is fine"
Here's a question just for you to answer...
"Why did they build an (almost) complete set for the Tantive IV interior in ROTS, when they could have CGIed some or all of it?"
If you can give the correct answer you might understand what was so wrong at the heart of the PT (Hint: The reason wasn't because it looked better).
OBI-WAN37 said:
A good description on the (PT) movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"
Anybody want to complete the sentence...
"The PT are mind-blowingly . . . . . . . films"
;-)
I don't quite understand what the mystery-answer question you asked is even asking, but I'm curious, what do you think is the answer?