OBI-WAN37

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

"somnabulist line readings" - good description!

 A 10% accurate description of the dialogue in the prequels, maybe just slightly, but it misses great lines such as "your focus determines your reality" from Qui-Gon, and it's not at all of good description of the movies overall; a good description on the movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

CO said:

Wolfman said:

TV's Frink said:

So is the OP gone for good?  I find his brand of crazy rather entertaining.

 He's headed back to the safety of TFN. Spending his time in....The prequel Trilogy forum where everything is awesome !

 I just ventured back to TFN today just to see how crazy that place has gotten and I was banned on my first thread: "At what moment did you realize you didn't like the PT?"

I should have called it, "The Prequels are great, tell me why you love them!"  And I guarantee it wouldnt have been locked.

 For me, the exact moment it changed from a youth spent dreaming of how great the prequels were sure to be, then gripping the cinema seat arms in rapt excitement about what I was about to witness...

...changed to a sick feeling in my stomach at about 28 seconds into TPM when the Star Wars logo came up and it was the wrong shade of yellow. The first thing that gave me the worrying feeling that the quality control switch for the new films might not be in the 'on' postion.

btw While googling SW the tother day and I stumbled onto a TFN thread about how "People are stupid who think there is a lot of CGI in the PT and there is actually loads of physical models/props etc" (Or something along those lines). It was page after page of posted photos of actors/crew standing around on green/blue screen stages that happened to also feature some real element somewhere. The phrase "Grasping at straws" sprung to mind.

 "Grasping at straws"? Seriously? On the first page you see tons of models. To quote my previous post "you can see a model AT-TE in the thread I linked, not to mention models of Mustafar, Naboo Royal Cruiser, a HUGE miniature city of Mois Eisley,the streets of Coruscant, that thing in the second picture down, the huge Geonosian arena, the corridors of the Jedi temple, the huts of the tusken raiders, the podracers, naboo, Kamino, the place where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought Count Dooku, the Trade Federation interior, life-size Anakin's podracer, some different costumes for the aliens on Mustafar, the Podracer stadium, the AAT, Feluccia, the hanger in the Invisible Hand, the Jedi Temple, a life-size Naboo Starfighter, C-3PO half-built, what seems to be half of a life-size podracer for Sebulba, several places where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought eachother, that place on Mustafar where Anakin murdered all those aliens, and if you check in the next link I give they actually used a lot of locations too, and this is probably only a fraction of the stuff they actually used."

Yeah the prequel trilogy had tons of models. And just as many locations as Episodes IV-VI as well, if you check the following link.  Just look at how many locations were used for Episodes I-III compared to Episodes IV-VI; the amount is the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_filming_locations It even says here on the 11th block down on the list of locations if you read the description next to Mount Etna that they filmed a real volcano in Episode III for Mustafar, that stuff about the prequels using too much CGI is mostly false.

I've seen all the behind-the-scenes PT stuff just like everyone. I know how much was built and how much wasn't. If you mean page 1 of this thread...

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

...I was saying that "Grasping at straws" would be like posting the following photos in support of your argument...

^ One model (Debatable if it was even used in the finished shots), other 99% of the shot to be CGIed in later.

*OBI37edit: how do you know Lucas didn't use other models for this scene, like spider-droids and such, and how do you even know that model wasn't used in the actual footage?

^ CGI people and CGI Corusscant e.g. 60-70% of the frame CGIed in later.

*OBI37edit: I'm not sure but I think those could well have been the only buildings even shown in the movie for the most part in that scene when that bounty hunter crashed or whatever, I don't see how they would need to build any more to show the speeder crash.

^ Other 80% of Coruscant CGIed in later.

*Edit by me (OBI-WAN37): it would have cost a fortune to build all of coruscant, do you realize how much they pass by in the speeders, and these aren't even necessarily all the models they used in the trilogy.

^ Tiny model built to woefully substitute a real (Expensive) set. Anakin and Padme to be CGIed in later along with a host of CGI creatures.

*OBI37edit: YOU are grasping at straws now, very few sets are that large, if any, given the scale, and of course the creatures would be CGI'd in later, there's no way a human could portray them even with the best makeup.

^ Other 70% of Coruscant CGIed in later.

*OBI37edit: Can't have models for everything

^ Other 70% of shot CGIed in later.

*OBI37edit: Building a background for that at that angle would have destroyed their budget, regardless of how much money they had, although I'll give you the fact that I don't know why a lot of the stuff at the front isn't modeled.

^ Other 90% of shot CGIed in later (Plus a thousand CGI people).

*Obi37edit: I'll give you the fact that they could have substituted the CGI environment with a real one (I don't know much about special effects, I don't really know), but the people are just like the Geonosian creatures: too un-humanoid to be portrayed by a human, even with makeup.

^ I'm not even gonna comment.

*OBI37edit: The background being a HUGE empty space enclosed by very distant walls, it would cost all the money on Earth to make a legitamate scale background for that scene, and most films would've CGI'd that scene instead of using a model, this is where it just comes down to preference, and I personally don't care that they used CGI instead of a model.

^ Other 90% of shot and people to be CGIed in later.

*OBI37edit: I'll admit I don't even know where that is.

^ Seriously you are cracking me up here.

*OBI37edit: Most films today would have CGI'd that for budeget reasons, and being Star Wars with so many different scenes it would cost too much to have sooo many studios for absolutely everything.

^ Other 50% of the shot and CGI droids added later.

*OBI37edit: CGI was probably the only way to go with that scene, the hallway would be too deep and expensive otherwise, most movies would have used CGI in this scene for the same reason of keeping expenses reasonable, and you can't have real moving droids, unless you want to have poor puppet-work.

I could go on but like I said "Clutching at straws".

btw in that same page these two photos are posted as "evidence" that the OT was no different...

^ Universally derided as the worst shot in ROTJ. It sticks out like a sore thumb and only damages your argument. I'm one of ROTJ's biggest fans over here but I can admit that shot stank and would have been better had it not been cheated on a Bluescreen. Clearly Lucas with eyesight decaying thought this was the way of the future.

^ Real people, sitting on a real prop, optically composited over real footage, so no, not really comparable. Besides, there was literally no other way this could be achieved at the time and since the sequence runs at about a gazillion miles an hour nobody notices any flaws (Not me anyway). But you'd have to be insane to use the same technique to film slow shots that could easily be achieved with practical photography... oh wait GL did on the PT in almost every shot.

Here is a little example...

^ ESB. Everything is real, real people, real ships, real props on location. Looks f*ckin' stunning!

^ ESB. Matte painting done later of the same base (The 80s equivalent of CGI). Looks 1000 times less convincing, which is why Adywan has reshot this one.

Fortunately every oportunity was taken in the OT to shoot it live, in camera and 100% for real (So that last shot is a rare exception). The exact opposite was true for the PT. If it could be CGIed in for less money than it cost to build it... it was.

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.

Humby said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

lightspeed2112 said:

Obi-Wan37, if you're really looking for an in-depth look at what's wrong with the prequel trilogy, check out the reviews at Red Letter Media.

 http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

These reviews articulated what I always felt about what was wrong with these moves, but couldn't put into words. They're quite lengthy, but well worth it.

 Those reviews are far too dark, and besides, whenever reviewers like that criticize the prequels, they never note anything positive about the films, and when they do, it's always along the lines of "sure, this was okay, but this was awful", when in truth the thing that was "okay" was actually awesome and the thing that was awful was actually just a small flaw. For example a prequel-hater might say, "sure the action was okay, but the acting was awful", when in truth the action was fantastic and the acting wasn't bad enough to outweigh the other positive things, like the very well-done tragedy and the great amount of Jedi and a look at how things were before Palpatine took over.

What you have to remember about those reviews is that they are going for a laugh.  They are written as comedy pieces rather than unbiased reviews.  But never the less, they do point out a good majority of the flaws and how awful they really are.

What most people with your point of view seem to think that we are trying to ruin your enjoyment of the prequels.  And that is just completely untrue.  We have no problem with people enjoying those movies.  Hell, I enjoy watching them occasionally as well.  I saw them when I was a bit younger and they provide me with a bit of nostalgia.  But regardless of that, we will defend to our deaths that they are objectively poorly made films.  They may look cool, they may provide a thrill, but they lack the majority of things that made the OT not just fun, but well made films (particularly ANH and ESB).

And personally, I even disagree with your statement about the action.  The action in the prequels is quite boring and uninspired.  Is it cool to watch?  Sure, because it's a science fiction space battle, or a war with laser weapons and light sabers, but aside from the sheer amount of "stuff" on the screen during these action scenes (which some might even consider a bad thing), they really aren't great at all. 

The acting on the other hand, is awful.  And it's not necessarily the actors' faults, but rather the poor dialogue and direction, the lack of tangible environments, and the unintelligible intentions of each character.

Again, I'm glad you enjoy these movies and I respect your opinion towards them.  I can't deny that I get a kick out of watching them now and again, but I will never stop arguing that they are not only poor star wars films, but poorly made films in general.

 Well at least you were polite, unlike a lot of people here.

lightspeed2112 said:

There's also one (among many) nit-picky thing that's bothered me about the prequels. When the Jedi talk about their force abilities, they refer to their "powers", as if they are superpowers. In the OT, the Force gave a Jedi his "power", which I took to mean a spiritual or mystical inner strength.  But I guess all that went out the window with the introduction of midichlorians. 

Plus, I hate the overall look of the PT, with the sleek shiny ships, etc. I love the lived in look of the OT. 

 Well I love the look of the prequel trilogy, and much prefer it to the look of the original trilogy, and not only is it fitting, as the former was how things were before the Emporer took over and everything was running pretty smoothly and the latter was after the Emporer took over and Rebels were basically working with what scraps they could pull together, but it looks better IMO as well. I think the reason most original trilogy fans don't like the feel of the prequel trilogy is because lots of them grew up with the look of the original trilogy, much like I prefer the look of the prequel trilogy over the look of the original trilogy not just because I think its better, but because I grew up with it. However that's not the only reason why I like the prequel trilogy. I like it because I think it's fantastic; the tragedy, the epic battles, the Jedi, the characters, everything.

Anchorhead said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

This is why I don't adhere to the principle of canon -- if I had to accept every aspect of any given fictional universe as "real", I'd never be able to like or enjoy any of them at all.

 Agreed.  Strongly.  That's why I have Personal Canon. I follow what works and what interests me. I ignore the rest.  It's just noise.

Your statement is also why I believe the TFNers have such a hard time with all of this.  Star Wars of the 1970s was never intended to be anything other than the first story. That's been proven multiple times and is well documented.  It was presented as an open & shut story. No Original Vision, no Saga telling the rise & fall of one of the secondary members of the military.

The two sets of films simply do not work as one story.  No amount of imagination or revisionist lying can change that.  Even the pretzel logic of Lucas *genuflect* and his multiple attempts at revision haven't been able to make sense of the mess.  All he's done is create a deeply divided fan base.  A fan base that seems more often than not to be at war with the story itself. 

To borrow from John Daggett in The Dark Knight Rises;  "It didn't work, my friend".

 Well I think it worked beautifully.

lightspeed2112 said:

Obi-Wan37, if you're really looking for an in-depth look at what's wrong with the prequel trilogy, check out the reviews at Red Letter Media.

 http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

These reviews articulated what I always felt about what was wrong with these moves, but couldn't put into words. They're quite lengthy, but well worth it.

 Those reviews are far too dark, and besides, whenever reviewers like that criticize the prequels, they never note anything positive about the films, and when they do, it's always along the lines of "sure, this was okay, but this was awful", when in truth the thing that was "okay" was actually awesome and the thing that was awful was actually just a small flaw. For example a prequel-hater might say, "sure the action was okay, but the acting was awful", when in truth the action was fantastic and the acting wasn't bad enough to outweigh the other positive things, like the very well-done tragedy and the great amount of Jedi and a look at how things were before Palpatine took over.

CO said:

Wolfman said:

TV's Frink said:

So is the OP gone for good?  I find his brand of crazy rather entertaining.

 He's headed back to the safety of TFN. Spending his time in....The prequel Trilogy forum where everything is awesome !

 I just ventured back to TFN today just to see how crazy that place has gotten and I was banned on my first thread: "At what moment did you realize you didn't like the PT?"

I should have called it, "The Prequels are great, tell me why you love them!"  And I guarantee it wouldnt have been locked.

 Well, someone posted a topic on the prequel trilogy subforum (not the original trilogy subforum) claiming that the prequels were the greatest trilogy ever filmed, and just for that the thread got locked just because it implies that the prequels were superior to the originals and it would probably have caused too much of a flame war. And besides, why would you even post that on the prequel trilogy sub-forum? That's just trolling, of course it would get locked.

Ryan McAvoy said:

CO said:

Wolfman said:

TV's Frink said:

So is the OP gone for good?  I find his brand of crazy rather entertaining.

 He's headed back to the safety of TFN. Spending his time in....The prequel Trilogy forum where everything is awesome !

 I just ventured back to TFN today just to see how crazy that place has gotten and I was banned on my first thread: "At what moment did you realize you didn't like the PT?"

I should have called it, "The Prequels are great, tell me why you love them!"  And I guarantee it wouldnt have been locked.

 For me, the exact moment it changed from a youth spent dreaming of how great the prequels were sure to be, then gripping the cinema seat arms in rapt excitement about what I was about to witness...

...changed to a sick feeling in my stomach at about 28 seconds into TPM when the Star Wars logo came up and it was the wrong shade of yellow. The first thing that gave me the worrying feeling that the quality control switch for the new films might not be in the 'on' postion.

btw While googling SW the tother day and I stumbled onto a TFN thread about how "People are stupid who think there is a lot of CGI in the PT and there is actually loads of physical models/props etc" (Or something along those lines). It was page after page of posted photos of actors/crew standing around on green/blue screen stages that happened to also feature some real element somewhere. The phrase "Grasping at straws" sprung to mind.

 "Grasping at straws"? Seriously? On the first page you see tons of models. To quote my previous post "you can see a model AT-TE in the thread I linked, not to mention models of Mustafar, Naboo Royal Cruiser, a HUGE miniature city of Mois Eisley,the streets of Coruscant, that thing in the second picture down, the huge Geonosian arena, the corridors of the Jedi temple, the huts of the tusken raiders, the podracers, naboo, Kamino, the place where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought Count Dooku, the Trade Federation interior, life-size Anakin's podracer, some different costumes for the aliens on Mustafar, the Podracer stadium, the AAT, Feluccia, the hanger in the Invisible Hand, the Jedi Temple, a life-size Naboo Starfighter, C-3PO half-built, what seems to be half of a life-size podracer for Sebulba, several places where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought eachother, that place on Mustafar where Anakin murdered all those aliens, and if you check in the next link I give they actually used a lot of locations too, and this is probably only a fraction of the stuff they actually used."

Yeah the prequel trilogy had tons of models. And just as many locations as Episodes IV-VI as well, if you check the following link.  Just look at how many locations were used for Episodes I-III compared to Episodes IV-VI; the amount is the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_filming_locations It even says here on the 11th block down on the list of locations if you read the description next to Mount Etna that they filmed a real volcano in Episode III for Mustafar, that stuff about the prequels using too much CGI is mostly false.

No, I just don't see it. I don't know why so many of the original-trilogy-fans tend to hate the prequels. I guess it's just a cultural phenomena. I love the prequels.

imperialscum said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

imperialscum said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

I'm amazed at how many very minor flaws people on this site manage to find in the prequels.

Minor flaws? Can you please try to respond to my first post in this thread? Puggo summarised it on this page as well.

I haven't had the pleasure of a prequel fan boys making any decent replies to that. Usually I just get ignored when I bring that up.

 Ok, I don't know what you're talking about when you say your first post, but as to what Pluggo said, I think that that "flaw" in Anakin's character isn't really a flaw that even really detracts from the movie, but more something original trilogy-fans pick on in order to find a way to hate the movie.

No, it actually isn't a flaw but a rather the way the character and story revolving around it was written. It wasn't written as an adventure... but as a bad drama about an extremely unlikable character.

So at that point it comes down to preference. Whether you like adventure (OT) or soap opera (PT).

Alright I don't think this is going anywhere none of us are going to change our opinions, so would someone please close this topic?

I was just about to get a possible answer to my arguments I made in the three posts just before yours. And, although I'm not totally sure this is by coincidence, someone always seems to prevent a direct response from coming from an OT fan after his argument is challenged well, whether it's the OT fan making the argument or someone who's watching, and this seems to be one of those times. So, I'm asking as politely as possible, can any of the individual posters I was responding to please give me a response to the response I gave them in any of my previous three posts?

imperialscum said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

I'm amazed at how many very minor flaws people on this site manage to find in the prequels.

Minor flaws? Can you please try to respond to my first post in this thread? Puggo summarised it on this page as well.

I haven't had the pleasure of a prequel fan boys making any decent replies to that. Usually I just get ignored when I bring that up.

 Ok, I don't know what you're talking about when you say your first post, but as to what Pluggo said, I think that that "flaw" in Anakin's character isn't really a flaw that even really detracts from the movie, but more something original trilogy-fans pick on in order to find a way to hate the movie.

xhonzi said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

I mean, you can't deny that the awesomeness of the action in the prequel trilogy was far greater than the awesomeness of the action in the original trilogy..

"A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

-George Lucas

 

 But I already said, the story for the Phantom menace was great, the story for Attack of the Clones was good enough, the story for revenge of the sith was fantastic, and the story when you look at the trilogy as a complete single movie was amazing.

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

I'm amazed at how many very minor flaws people on this site manage to find in the prequels.

The make-up on ian mcdiarmid? First of all, I didn't notice anything wrong with it when I watched the prequels, and secondly, even if there was, it's not a big deal.

Secondly, the plot for the Phantom Menace was great: saving an endangered planet (naboo). And the plot for Attack of the Clones was good enough, and the plot for Revenge of the Sith was fantastic (Anakin's turn to the dark side).

Thirdly, I don't even care about the not-so excellent dialogue. Sure some of it was cliche. Like Darth Vader's "nooooooooooo"... but who cares? The films were an awesome tragedy.

Fourthly, the original trilogy wouldn't mean nearly as much to me if the prequel trilogy didn't exist. I mean, sure the acting's better. But not by much. I mean look at Ewan McGregor, Samuel Jackson, Ian Mcdiarmid, Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee.... all fantastic actors from the prequels.... and sure the story in the Original Trilogy was just as good as (but not better than) the prequels when you compare the two trilogies as individual episodes, but overall as one big, single movie the original trilogy just wasn't as good as the overall story of the prequels was as a single movie....

I mean, you can't deny that the awesomeness of the action in the prequel trilogy was far greater than the awesomeness of the action in the original trilogy... and the ships abundance of great-looking ships was greater too... combine that with the awesome story of the prequels and you have one pretty fantastic trilogy.

 Setting the top image aside for a moment (And that the bottom one is unfinished),

You say "The plot for Attack of the Clones was good enough" and "I don't even care about the not-so excellent dialogue. Sure some of it was cliche. Like Darth Vader's "nooooooooooo"... but who cares?"

Too quote Luke "I CARE!". Since when was mediocrity acceptable in films? Plus since when was admitting that something was average a valid defence of how good it was? (We're through the looking glass on this one chums).

 Okay, you must admit you didn't mention how I also said that the story for the phantom menace was great and that the story for revenge of the sith was fantastic, and how I also said that the story for the prequel trilogy as one full story was even better than the original trilogy as one story, and you also didn't mention how I called the story a "fantastic tragedy". So that is how the prequel trilogy is still fantastic.

I'm amazed at how many very minor flaws people on this site manage to find in the prequels.

The make-up on ian mcdiarmid? First of all, I didn't notice anything wrong with it when I watched the prequels, and secondly, even if there was, it's not a big deal.

Secondly, the plot for the Phantom Menace was great: saving an endangered planet (naboo). And the plot for Attack of the Clones was good enough, and the plot for Revenge of the Sith was fantastic (Anakin's turn to the dark side).

Thirdly, I don't even care about the not-so excellent dialogue. Sure some of it was cliche. Like Darth Vader's "nooooooooooo"... but who cares? The films were an awesome tragedy.

Fourthly, the original trilogy wouldn't mean nearly as much to me if the prequel trilogy didn't exist. I mean, sure the acting's better. But not by much. I mean look at Ewan McGregor, Samuel Jackson, Ian Mcdiarmid, Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee.... all fantastic actors from the prequels.... and sure the story in the Original Trilogy was just as good as (but not better than) the prequels when you compare the two trilogies as individual episodes, but overall as one big, single movie the original trilogy just wasn't as good as the overall story of the prequels was as a single movie....

I mean, you can't deny that the awesomeness of the action in the prequel trilogy was far greater than the awesomeness of the action in the original trilogy... and the ships abundance of great-looking ships was greater too... combine that with the awesome story of the prequels and you have one pretty fantastic trilogy.

imperialscum said:

Wolfman said:

Best you stay over on TFN where you can all have a group hug about it.

I am sorry but you don't seem to understand the mind of an average prequel boy. They get very little satisfaction from agreeing among themselves on "how great the prequels are". Their mind is ravaged by the fact that a lot of people hold a bad opinion of the prequels. The most satisfaction they get from attacking those people.

 Why are the people who always claim that the prequel trilogy sucks always so rude about it? I wasn't rude to anyone here. I challenge you to look through any of my posts and find one rude remark. Chances are, you won't. And yet I'm getting tons of people being rude to me. And by the way, it seems to me that people who dislike the OT are the people who feel a need to try and be rude to prequel trilogy-lovers for no justified reason. I don't appreciate it. Another thing I don't appreciate is all the prequel trilogy-haters stating their opinions as if they're fact. They hardly ever say "in my opinion...", or even "I think...". 

Ryan McAvoy said:

I may of used the analogy before but saying there are more models in the PT is like saying there is more sugar in a lemon than in a strawberry.

 How do you know this? In Episode III "the film required 910 artists and 70,441 man-hours to create 49 seconds of footage for the Mustafar duel alone" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith#Special_effects). And someone over at TFN was pretty confident when he stated that Episode III had more model makers than any film ever made.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Oh yeah you're right there's hardly any CGI in the PT and it all looks stunning. I've just removed my eyes and given them a proper telling off for lying to me all these years.

Knowing this fact really makes me appreciate how agile pensioners like Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid really where. They must have done some Yoga training because their bodies twisted and bent into shapes that you'd think were impossible. Neato! (Also the puppeteering on general Grievous was sick!).

As if to prove your point here's the second OT battle from ESB being shot...

and here's the second PT battle from AOTC being shot...

 Did you not see that thread I linked? http://boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/ It proves that there are a lot of models in the PT. I would suspect that that battle in AOTC actually did use some models, you can see a model AT-TE in the thread I linked, not to mention models of Mustafar, Naboo Royal Cruiser, a HUGE miniature city of Mois Eisley,the streets of Coruscant, that thing in the second picture down, the huge Geonosian arena, the corridors of the Jedi temple, the huts of the tusken raiders, the podracers, naboo, Kamino, the place where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought Count Dooku, the Trade Federation interior, life-size podracer, some different costumes for the aliens on Mustafar, the Podracer stadium, the AAT, Feluccia, the hanger in the Invisible Hand, the Jedi Temple, a life-size Naboo Starfighter, C-3PO half-built, what seems to be half of a life-size podracer for Sebulba, several places where Anakin and Obi-Wan fought eachother, and this is probably only a fraction of the stuff they actually used.

*edited.

I'm a little sick of everyone bashing the prequel trilogy. They are utterly mind-blowingly fantastic films. And no, I'm not joking. They're a fantastic trilogy and tragedy (I'm not misspelling any words). The way Palpatine manipulates anakin is excellent, and there's so many awesome action sequences. You get to see the Jedi in their prime, and for those who say the prequels had too much CGI, check this thread, which proves there isn't really too much CGI in the prequel trilogy, except for maybe the clones: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/p...-etc.50017310/. And yes, the story was great, because anakin turning to the dark side is truly moving, and the way Palpatine manipulates anakin into doing so is so cool, especially in episode III when you're just watching and thinking, "no, don't turn to the dark side", but then he does and the effect, regardless of how obvious it is that it was going to happen, is amazing. And the climatic duel on mustafar! Fantastic. They even incorporated a real erupting volcano into that scene! As awesome as the original trilogy is, I think the prequels surpass episodes IV-VI. I look forward to episode VII not so much because I want the film to live up to the originals, as fantastic as they are, but because I want it to live up to the prequels. What do you think about prequel bashing?