Sign In

Stupidest Prequal complaints

Author
Time
I like this to go against bitchy fan boys and some of the stupidest prequal complaints from stupid fanboys.

"Its more advanced in the prequals then the originals"

Where the hell does this come from. The death star and most star destroyers all appear more advanced and powerful then anything in the prequals.

"Too much CGI"

No such thing. Digital technology is an amazing tool for telling a movies story. It allows anything a filmmaker visualizes to come to screen in photorealism.

Got anymore
Author
Time
"They sucked."

Oh... uh... well, they did.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Heres one of my favorites

"Anakin was too imature in The Phantom Menace"

He was a fucking nine year old kid. How mature are nine year old kids.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: jimbo"Anakin was too imature in The Phantom Menace"

He was a fucking nine year old kid. How mature are nine year old kids.


Fine -- but it makes for a lousy movie. My complaint is not that the kid didn't act his age, just that every aspect of the story would have made more sense (and been more tolerable to watch) if Lucas had written him a little older. Start the story when he's even just 11 or 12, and it would have been miles better. It's far easier to find good actors in that age range, far easier to believe both his interest and skill with building and repairing droids and racers, far easier to believe his later infatuation with whatserface if it wasn't based on their short time together when he was NINE, and on and on and on...

Seriously, the whole thing would have been so much better.
Author
Time
I personally disagree. I think making him so young put him at a tender age. It allowed for his character to start as inocent as possible. That was his intension to make him as friendly and inocent as possible. This would make it better to slowly mold him into the evil warlord Darth Vader. I personally thought that Jake Loyd did a good job as a young Anakin.
Author
Time
Ok, here we go, what was needed to change on TPM:

* No C3PO, no R2D2. Anakin built c3po?! I mean, small universe, isn't it?
* Anakin should be a lonely, sad, quiet kid. Not a freaking hyperactive kid filled with cheesy one-liners.
* Less gungans. Jar Jar proved to be necessary, but he could have about 5 minutes of screen time.
* It should blend with the 70s/80s look of the original trilogy. Clumsy robots with little people inside, wireframe CGI on screens...
* Darth Maul survives the battle and is killed by Palpatine.
* Clearly show Palpatine is Sidious, I mean, who is the antagonist on that film? Who's the "bad" guy?

Oh, and for AOTC:

* Anakin a little bit more serious, quiet, and challenging Obi-Wan a little bit more.
* More Qui-Gon references.
* No "Yoda teaching kids" scene. Obi-Wan figures it out by himself.
* Better paced action sequences, a better space fight between Obi-Wan and Jango.
* Again, NO C3PO. It would be ok to have R2D2, but with no flying around.


On both:

* Acting, for God's sake! Oh, and only featuring GOOD unknown actors.
* Less CGI, more real stuff.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
I think the stupidest complaint I have heard in regards to the sequals would have to be, "I liked it, so why doesn't everyone else?".
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Ok, here we go, what was needed to change on TPM:

* No C3PO, no R2D2. Anakin built c3po?! I mean, small universe, isn't it?
* Anakin should be a lonely, sad, quiet kid. Not a freaking hyperactive kid filled with cheesy one-liners.
* Less gungans. Jar Jar proved to be necessary, but he could have about 5 minutes of screen time.
* It should blend with the 70s/80s look of the original trilogy. Clumsy robots with little people inside, wireframe CGI on screens...
* Darth Maul survives the battle and is killed by Palpatine.
* Clearly show Palpatine is Sidious, I mean, who is the antagonist on that film? Who's the "bad" guy?

Oh, and for AOTC:

* Anakin a little bit more serious, quiet, and challenging Obi-Wan a little bit more.
* More Qui-Gon references.
* No "Yoda teaching kids" scene. Obi-Wan figures it out by himself.
* Better paced action sequences, a better space fight between Obi-Wan and Jango.
* Again, NO C3PO. It would be ok to have R2D2, but with no flying around.


On both:

* Acting, for God's sake! Oh, and only featuring GOOD unknown actors.
* Less CGI, more real stuff.


First of all C3P0 and R2D2 belong in the Star Wars universe from the beginning. The droids in the original trilogy were junk because they were not designed for physical activity. R2D2 for example is a space droid designed to aid a one man fighter no need for him to have great monuverability on the ground. C3PO is a protical droid designed for communication no need for a good physical body. Surely in a universe with space travel that great they oviously could invent such advanced droids. It was excellent to not show clearly that Palpatine was Sideous. These are meant to be watched sequencally and its cool to keep the villian hidden until the right moment. Hence the title The Phantom Menace. The arguement about Darth Maul getting killed by Palpatine had to be a joke. Thats just stupid. Like I said before Anakin being the way that he was a way to start him off completly innocent and slowly mold him to evil. In The Phantom Menace George wanted to have no clue whatsoever if you haven't seen the originals that Anakin would be evil. In Attack of the Clones Anakin is just well horny. Who can blame him? While five minutes is a bit low I agree Jar Jar should have had less screen time in The Phantom Menace. Still The Phantom Menace is a happy time in Star Wars. Before the Clone Wars before the Empire. Jar Jar in some ways aided that happy go lucky feel George was shooting for. I think all the actors have talent and did a good job in there roles. Except Natalie Portman who did an excellent job other then being gorgous. Also the shiny look of the prequals is symbolic to the happy before Empire time of Star Wars. The grimmy 1970s look of the originals symbolizes the dark times of the Empire. Also there is no such thing as to much CGI. CGI is the ultimate filmmaking tool. It allows a filmmaker to visuallize anything in his head and bring it to life in photorealism. CGI has freed filmmaking from multiple constrants.
Author
Time
Yes it has. But it can backfire when not used properly.

For example: The CGI Jabba in the SE of ANH. I am not really against showing Jabba, but in 1997 CGI just wasn't advanced enough, and It makes the scene very distracting, especially when Han starts clipping Jabba. (After he walks behind him. He leans toward the actor, but it is too far for the Jabba model.)

CGI free's filmakers up but it can be overused. There was no reason to have the droids in Dexter's Cafe in AotC made of CGI. And Yoda being CGI is pointlessly dis-continuous. Yoda's skin isn't supposed to be that shiny, and he isn't supposed to be able to move that much.
And it probably wouldn't bother anybody if he had been CG from the begginning, (If the technology existed in '79) but the Puppets look so different it's hard not to notice.

4

Author
Time
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the "no such thing as too much CGI" comment. Sure, when it's used properly and done really well it can look good, but if movies don't have super high budgets and really good special effects artists, it usually looks extremely obvious and really cheesy.

About CGI freeing filmmakers from constraints, that is true, but it seems to me that Lucas is using it as the easy way out for him. I was just watching some of the documentaries on the Episode II DVD a few days ago, and I was really surprised to see that in some of the scenes (don't remember exactly which ones at the moment), he didn't even take the time to build sets, he just had the actors in a green screen room and then added the set using CGI later on.

What I don't get is why Lucas doesn't combine old and new technology for special effects. For ships fighting each other in outer space, he could easily use models for that and then just enhance it with CGI when needed. That would make it look much more realistic, because models ARE real. When it comes to outer space battles, I'd pick the original trilogy ones any day because they looked realistic, while the prequel trilogy's battles look fake a lot of the time, because you can tell that it's made from computers.

So CGI might make things easier, but a lot of the times it's just used by filmmakers as the easy way out when there are lots of things done in CGI that could also be done with models and miniatures and stuff, which would make it look real. But I guess filmmakers still haven't gotten over the fact that they've got CGI. It's like when you get a new game, you keep playing it alot over and over again, but as time goes on you eventually stop using it so much and stuff after you've gotten used to it. I think the same thing's happening with filmmakers, and Lucas in particular. He's just gotten to use CGI and because it's so new he's using it as much as he can because it's so easy and everything. Based on some of the sequences that are in the prequel trilogy, it wouldn't surprise me if Lucas made some of those as big and huge as he did just to show off what CGI could do, and just because he could with this new technology.

Well, hopefully one day CGI can be perfected so that it looks completely life like, but until then models, puppets, miniatures, etc. are always going to look more real, mainly because they actually are real and not something that comes out of a computer.
Author
Time
I'm not a big fan of the CGI either. I can always notice it and it just never feels real at all. Imagine replacing the jabba in ORTJ with a CGI - they would be two entirely different things. I don't know if CGI will ever be able to imitate true reality fully, but as for now it sticks out like a sore thumb due to too many reasons to think about. A real presence of a model or person fills a space that CGI only imitates the look of, but really has no physical dimension to it.
Author
Time
Actually I don't know why the CGI Jabba looked poor. Draco from Dragonheart in 1996 looked a hell of alot better so they had better technology in 1997. They probably had time constraits or something. Still he wasn't that bad but could have been better. In my opinion after 1993s Jurassic Park digital animation has no limits. The dinosaurs walked around in the sun and looked real. Basically models on wires were fine during the 80s but the best model effects can't compare to good digital ships. George did not overuse computer generated imagery at all. Every digital shot looked great and made the whole Star Wars universe come alive. The digital Yoda made the puppet Yoda look sucky in comparison. I would love to see the puppet Yoda do those flips and kick all ass.
Author
Time
I'm guessing that Steve "Spaz" Williams deliberately made it look crappy because he was ending his contract with ILM and moving on to work as the effects supervisor for Spawn.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Another thing people say they can tell its CGI. Then again in a puppet you can always tell its a pupput or tell its a model on wire. Anyone experianced in watching movies can spot a filmmaking effect.
Author
Time
Yes.. And I'm pretty sure most of us have plenty of experience watching movies.

Now.. to play devil's advocate for a minute... What is it about CG that makes it so obvious. I mean--even "photorealistic" CG like in The Matrix Revolutions and AotC still doesn't look normal. So why is that? I can't figure it out.

4

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Yes.. And I'm pretty sure most of us have plenty of experience watching movies.

Now.. to play devil's advocate for a minute... What is it about CG that makes it so obvious. I mean--even "photorealistic" CG like in The Matrix Revolutions and AotC still doesn't look normal. So why is that? I can't figure it out.


I belive this involves a number of factors, such as:

* Poor animation, the movement of the character dosen't look/feel realistic, it's quite difficult to imitate a human body movement, so many complex things going on while you move an arm, or walk.

* By lightning differences, you can "sense" that object dosen't belong to the scene. Also happens with poorly executed chroma key.

* Our brains use a complex (and still mostly unknown) mechanism to recognize faces and objects, when something goes "wrong", our brain tells us "oh uh not real", and today's software can't still beat the human brain. The closets they got so far, I belive, was with that Final Fantasy movie, during some moments (couple of seconds) I "felt" like I was watching a real person.

* The phisics are complex, and we are used to seeing things behaving "right" with the universe's phisics. That's why you can recognize a model in a movie when it's not filmed correctly, with the right light and speed. Imagine a King Kong puppet about 2 feet tall on a Empire State model. If he falls from the building, and the camera is filming in a normal speed, you'll instantly notice how big King Kong really is. Why? Because of his speed while falling, it'd be too fast. They must slow down the film at the precise speed, or else we'll notice. Same thing happens to CGI, if the movements are perfect, we notice those flaws.

So, please, for the next 15 to 20 years, keep the CGI use to animation films only!
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
It's not impossible for the CG to blend in with everything else, but it would have to be damnably difficult. Troy and the Lord of the Rings movies had some of the least oppressive CG that I've ever seen. You knew that the tens of thousands of soldiers were fake, but they added so much to the film and didn't act like they didn't belong. As for Attack of the Clones, there was always something cartoonish to me about the Geonosis battle, though I didn't know the extent of the CGI until George Lucas bragged in his DVD commentary about how he only had six clone trooper uniforms made for the movie. That doesn't seem like something to boast about, in my opinion.
CG can be a useful tool, but it can also be a hindrance. Filmmakers can learn to rely upon it too much, and it completely distracts from the story when that happens.

As for stupidest prequel complaint: it would have to be 'God, Jar-Jar! What the f*** was Lucas thinking?' Though many would disagree (and that's totally okay with me), I actually don't mind Jar-Jar, for my part. But that's just me.
My Blog
Currently Reading: Shatterpoint, by Matthew Stover
Unrepentent Nader Voter
Author
Time
I think another reason CGI often seems obvious is that it always looks too perfect, too shiny. Movie makers try hard to avoid this, but it doesn't work very often. I believe the reason the CGI in LOTR worked so well is that the characters weren't "uniform", ie their left side lookeddifferent from the right; whereas the clones on AOTC were very uniform, and the shiny uniforms look more plastic than the textures on the orcs etc in LOTR. Plus all the clones looked exactly the same (obviously) which again looks unnatural. Even the stormtroopers in the OT look slightly different; they all wear the same uniform, but are slightly different heights, have slightly different stances, have slightly different amounts of black and white showing etc, and the eye picks up on these minute differences, which don't exist in AOTC.
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
Double post...
-Everyone is entitled to my opinion-
Author
Time
You argue that Computer Generated Imagery doesn't always look quite real. This is true but then again look at puppets and other filmmaking tricks. How often do they look fully believable. Almost never. Digital Animation is real far more often. Which is why filmmakers have pretty much abandoned hand drawn, stop motion, and wire animation. Digital technology made a live action Lord of the Rings movie possible. Why was it never made before no technology. Hand drawn animated movies of the past have always had the best imagery because there are no limits. Digital technology gives the same limitless feel but with photorealism. There is no such thing as to much CGI.
Author
Time
I don't agree, Jimbo. I think it there's a way to do a shot in the real world, you look into it and try to do it. If there's no way to do a shot in the real world, you do it as a digtal shot. Plus the lord of the rings used not only CGI but extensive models, live action and make up, plus digital animation all working together. There was a mix, there was a blend of techniques old and new that made middle-earth such a convincing place. CGI can be used too much, and its overuse is hurting the prequels' level of realism that existed in the originals.
You like popsicles? Then you need to come on down to the cellar. I got a whole freezer FULL of popsicles. Mmmmm...
Author
Time
personally i am PT lover, but jimbo i am sorry but there are many times when there is truely too much CG, there were some times that it happened in the PT but honestly i dont feel it was enough to complain about. Did you know that minas tirith was a completei would have to say that about 75% of all the shots with MT in it were real. all they added was the sky. Models Can Be Very Good and Very realistic. want an example of too much CG see Van helsing. another The Core(Yes some of the sences were cool but there was alot of unnessary CG. lets think of some more, Star trek 6 very bad CG, the Hulk, thye should have done extensive makeup and made a full body suit aswell as a robot version, would have made the movie alot better. there are others too but i dont see enough movies to give more examples of the top of my head. as for the PT Problems, ill humor some awell, personally i feel the PT was very good. AOTC is at the top of my list in the SW movies and TPM is not last.
Author
Time
The Geonosis arena was a model!!

Too much cgi..mmm.......Van Helsing, had to much cgi and it looked bad, so bad.

I'm not gonna start slagging of Star Wars coz I love it, but OT had puppets, the PT has CGI...
So who really gives a fuck.
As long as the story is good.
Which it is!

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie