Lotta chat on various movie sites about this. The general opinion is that Lucas kinda made his prequels too ‘sterile’ with the hyper CGI effects, and that Abrams seems to be getting more of the original films’ “lived in” real tangible world look.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Lotta chat on various movie sites about this. The general opinion is that Lucas kinda made his prequels too ‘sterile’ with the hyper CGI effects, and that Abrams seems to be getting more of the original films’ “lived in” real tangible world look.
S[/quote]
Honestly, that’s probably the best way to explain how I felt about the new vs the old ones as well. I look forward to the new ones coming out.
x2.
I always thought it was a bit backwards to see how super-advanced everything looked in the battle scenes of Episode I, II, and III when compared to the look of Episode IV, V, and IV. Watch the Battle of Naboo in The Phantom Menace, then watch the Death Star battle scene in A New Hope, and tell me how it makes any sense that the battle with way more, shinier, and far more advanced-looking ships would have taken place at least 30 years beforehand.
I have every confidence that George Lucas will find a way to fuck this up and cheat me out of even more money.
I love seeing proper sets instead of green screens. That’s the exact reason why a movie like Jurassic Park still holds up well today in most parts. That T-Rex still looks deadly as all hell.
I kind of think about prequels vs. originals as Rome vs. dark ages. Now, of course Rome probably wasn’t really all that clean and shiny and the dark ages had a lot of bright spots, but this does show how technology can go backward.
Lord of the Rings trilogy vs. Hobbit trilogy suffers from the same problem. Lord of the Rings was awesome because of the live action fight scenes that were intense and filmed well. The first two Hobbit films had really crappy fight scenes that didn’t feel at all realistic.
[quote]Rattler wrote:
I love seeing proper sets instead of green screens. That’s the exact reason why a movie like Jurassic Park still holds up well today in most parts. That T-Rex still looks deadly as all hell. [/quote]
x2
The other movie i thought of was Jaws. A cgi shark would not cut it.
Not to derail, but get ready for the next Jurassic installment…Jurassic World. Coming in 2015.
Has everyone seen RedLetterMedia’s reviews of the prequels?
Funny and spot on.
I have a buddy that works for Lucasfilm (well Disney now I guess) and is pretty close to the inside…I don’t know how much he knows because I never ask him and put him on the spot…but he’s interviewed the actors and even walked by in a sene in Episode III.
Now I’m cool, right?
CGI sucks for the most part. This looks promising. But I won’t get my hopes up as long as Lucas is around.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
But I won’t get my hopes up as long as Lucas is around.[/quote]
He was around for episodes 4, 5, and 6…
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
x2.
I always thought it was a bit backwards to see how super-advanced everything looked in the battle scenes of Episode I, II, and III when compared to the look of Episode IV, V, and IV. Watch the Battle of Naboo in The Phantom Menace, then watch the Death Star battle scene in A New Hope, and tell me how it makes any sense that the battle with way more, shinier, and far more advanced-looking ships would have taken place at least 30 years beforehand.[/quote]
Well, they had a war/coupe/revolution and the means of industry collapsed.
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/leaked-images-of-the-millenium-falcon-and-more-236
and we’ve got an actual set (no green screen) for the Falcon.
S
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
But I won’t get my hopes up as long as Lucas is around.[/quote]
He was around for episodes 4, 5, and 6…[/quote]
Lucas’ hands-on role in the original three vs. prequels are much different, since he directed the last 3. Working with a budget and having to answer to bigger people probably kept him in check. In the prequels, it was free reign, and look what we got.
I’m just glad he is not writing or directing. Just consulting.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
But I won’t get my hopes up as long as Lucas is around.[/quote]
He was around for episodes 4, 5, and 6…[/quote]
Lucas’ hands-on role in the original three vs. prequels are much different, since he directed the last 3. Working with a budget and having to answer to bigger people probably kept him in check. In the prequels, it was free reign, and look what we got.
I’m just glad he is not writing or directing. Just consulting.[/quote]
Spot on. That’s just what I wanted to say.
I think a lot of the origial triliogy’s success was thanks to editing and the work done by other people…not as much Lucas as many think.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
I kind of think about prequels vs. originals as Rome vs. dark ages. Now, of course Rome probably wasn’t really all that clean and shiny and the dark ages had a lot of bright spots, but this does show how technology can go backward.
[/quote]
Then came the special editions…
[quote]
Lord of the Rings trilogy vs. Hobbit trilogy suffers from the same problem. Lord of the Rings was awesome because of the live action fight scenes that were intense and filmed well. The first two Hobbit films had really crappy fight scenes that didn’t feel at all realistic. [/quote]
Prequels have incredibly, increasingly long end credits. I’d never have known there were assistant plasterers on X-Men: Days of Future Past if they didn’t throw in a stinger. CG fight scenes look crap for one reason: they’re always ‘filmed’ from one angle in one ‘take’ no matter how meticulously those scenes are storyboarded. The hands-on direction is outsourced.
Gamorrean Boar?
^ shit, that’s bad ass! I wonder how many people it takes to operate that thing?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
^ shit, that’s bad ass! I wonder how many people it takes to operate that thing?[/quote]
Many Bothans died to bring us this information.
S