The most pathetic drivel about the prequels i have ever read. — Page 3

Bingowings said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

The PT is badly made on almost every level.

Quite right. The only area wherein the PT excels is the production values. Technically, the CGI, costumes, props, sets (what few there were), etc. were virtually flawless. But at the end of the day, the PT is still almost unwatchable. High production values can be extremely helpful in telling a story, but when the production values themselves become the foreground and the story becomes the background, chaos ensues. The cinematic tools become the main thing, and the actual main thing is sacrificed on the altar of technological innovation and showy, flashy visual effects. That the dialogue was so artificial and the acting was so cringe-worthily bad, only added to the train wreck.

Nope the CGI is frequently flawed, the costumes, frequently bland or narratively function free and the few physical set that did exist were often screwed up by digital 'enhancements' which were inconsistent, often pointlessly showy and also flawed.

What is this even supposed to mean? When you say that the CGI is "flawed," what are you arguing? That there are frequently technical errors? Or merely that the CGI is frequently unconvincing? If the former, then you could've fooled me; while the random error here or there is probably unavoidable in such a big-budget series, I was never really aware of any abundance of such errors. And if the latter, then that's not actually a matter of the CGI itself being flawed; it's a flawed design. But that's actually exactly what I was contending to begin with, so why are you disagreeing with me?

For that matter, how are the costumes "bland?" Over-the-top, sure. But bland? Seriously?? And as for "narratively function free"...well, yeah, obviously; that's the entire point I was trying to argue. And even when physical sets were screwed up in post via over-the-top CGI enhancements, the production values of the sets themselves were still top notch.

Did you misunderstand my post? I wasn't saying that any of the CGI/props/costumes/sets actually worked in the context of storytelling, only that they were well-done in terms of technical achievement. But none of them actually succeeded in aiding the story, and more often than not distracted from the storytelling. "That's all I'm really tryin' to say."

Yes, I've seen that image before; and admittedly, it is embarrassingly bad. But let me ask you this: Did you notice this error while watching AOTC in motion? I surely didn't, and it's important to remember that no film was ever designed to be watched frame-by-frame.

Also, as I said before, "the random [CG] error here or there is probably unavoidable in such a big-budget series" just by virtue of how many CG shots must be churned out in a relatively limited timeframe. Now I'm not saying that movies should be 90% CG; only that in a movie that is, we should expect and forgive a bad shot or two, especially if it's only noticeable when watching frame-by-frame.

Akwat Kbrana said:

it's important to remember that no film was ever designed to be watched frame-by-frame.

You do realize this is originaltrilogy.com, don't you?

timdiggerm said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

it's important to remember that no film was ever designed to be watched frame-by-frame.

You do realize this is originaltrilogy.com, don't you?

Very amusing. I assume you're referring to our proclivity on this forum toward obsessing over minute details in individual movie stills? If so, it's worth noting that your observation actually reinforces my point. Take a stroll through Ady's ESB:R thread, and you'll see that the Empire Strikes Back (which most people, myself included, consider to be the apex of the Star Wars saga) evidences tons of technical flaws when watched frame-by-frame. So just because there's a continuity or visual effects defect in a given scene, that particular aspect of the film itself shouldn't be considered inherently flawed unless the defect can be seen in motion. Because that's how films are designed to be watched. If the PT is flawed because technical flaws can be seen when watched frame-by-frame, then the OT is similarly flawed. (Geeze, I can't believe I'm actually defending the bloody PT. Hope nobody confuses me for a TFN gusher.)

Of course, your comment was probably tongue-in-cheek to begin with, thus rendering my lengthy and unnecessarily convoluted response, rather stuffy. Sorry 'bout that.

Anchorhead: There are two problems with that movie still. First, Christopher Lee's head has been poorly composited over his stunt double (neither the levels nor the proportions are correct). Second, the lightsaber has been poorly rotoscoped: from the glow, it appears actually to end right where the ship begins. So, it would be only a foot or two long.

A frame taken out of context...

Is now in (slow) motion.

The leg doesn't just vanish without explanation.

TV's Frink said:

Yeah, but the OT is worth watching frame-by-frame.

Which i why i have them on CAV laserdisc. 

Speaking of George i know it is not officially confirmed but i heard the live action show is moving forward as star tours II is done and Red Tails is in post production.

Whether or not they shot anything for the live action series is anyone's guess, but since they got Daniel Logan to voice Boba Fett on the clone wars show i am sure he will be in the live action if and when it happens.

I think the whole thing is George is worried about the budget and making them theatrical quality 1 hour shows.  Also he needs a TV network/studio to help release it.

twooffour said:

Back then, I've left a whole bunch of comments and responses there, each last of them negative, derisive and snarky, and yet none of them has been removed to this day as far as I can tell - the only ones that hadn't been published in the first place, had cuss words in them.

I then had a brief exchange with the admin, and he confirmed that my post was deleted because of profanity, and they basically only deleted messages when they violate their rules of conduct.

 

So could it be that Adywan just swore a lot? Because they're obviously not removing comments for criticism and snarky attitude... in that case, I'd say don't count with his comments being "reposted" :D

He can, of course, resubmit them without the cuss words anytime :D

There was not a single swear word, or anything that could be mistaken for a swear word in my response. It merely blew his pathetic theories out of the water using facts that are out there from interviews etc and not some made up rubbish like his article was. It was removed for no reason at all. I didn't even verbally attach the writer of the original article in my response, just showed him that his interpretations were wrong. Nothing i wrote would have violated their rules of conduct.

I have no interest in resubmitting my response only for it to be deleted again.

I guess the problem with adywan's posts is that they actually had some substance to them.

I posted my comment when the article first went up. I was not the only one to have had their comments removed at this time, as has already been stated here by others. There were posts after mine that heavily criticized the article, which none were abusive or contained any bad language, but were deleted.  It was only later that the real negative comments were left alone.