What Do You See Wrong With the Prequels?

[Erick Landrider]

I know its all after the fact, but I still like to think how The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones could have been differently for the better

The first thing that peeved me about AOTC was the name

It sounds like bad cartoon title.

Why not "Rise of Darkness" or simply say "The Clone Wars"

Nothing brilliant, but it ain't bad for 20 seconds of thinking kind of hard

Anything else?

[Jedi Kum-ahK]

You're right. Somehow, I felt TPM was somehow weird, and the AOTC too. Until the film, my impression was that the Clone Wars had been started by some evil forces, not that the Jedi were employing the clones (rather fighting against them).
As to the titles:
Ep. I: Rebellion in the Republic
Ep. II: The Return of the Sith

something like that
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[mtilden]

Aren't there already like, 5 million other threads on this topic? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif Anyway, the complaints about the title are dumb, it is SUPPOSED to sound like a B-movie title, because that is what SW is! Would it really be a good title, to contain the word 'wars' twice in five words? Think about it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Until the film, my impression was that the Clone Wars had been started by some evil forces, not that the Jedi were employing the clones (rather fighting against them).
[/b][/quote]

Uhhhh.... the Clone Wars WERE started by some evil forces, namely, the Sith, weren't you watching? The film was poorly edited, but even so, it made clear that the Republic had no choice but to attack, because they were soon going to be attacked by the seperetists.

[JediBendu]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Uhhhh.... the Clone Wars WERE started by some evil forces, namely, the Sith, weren't you watching? [/b][/quote]

one could even say a phantom menace style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by mtilden@Mar 25 2003, 04:14 PM
Aren't there already like, 5 million other threads on this topic? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif


I didn't see those threads

This is Specifically meant for those who have ideas of what could make them better (maybe it belongs in the Fanfiction thread)

Also before this gets out of hand, other than short one-liners, no Prequal Trilogy bashing

Just acknowledge whats wrong and what you would have done to make it better

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't see those threads

[/b][/quote]

Sorry, I am being kind of sarcastic, what I am saying is, that the whole purpose of this message board is to discuss and critique the Prequels.... I am just joshing you a bit, so please don't take me too seriously.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also before this gets out of hand, other than short one-liners, no Prequal Trilogy bashing
[/b][/quote]

Aaah! That's a good rule! I likey that rule! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif I am so sick of prequel bashing....


Anyhoo, the major problems with the prequels, are the same things that are wrong with the OT, bad acting, bad dialogue and sloppy editing. But, as I have noted before on this board, to great controversy, the dialogue isn't very important to me. But the editing is. All of the character development and exaplanatory scenes were cut. This is true of the OT as well. Polish up the acting and dialogue, re-edit the suckers, and I have no real problem with the prequels. I find the story quite interesting and intriguing, and the characters likable enough, it is the technical things that bug me.

[Erick Landrider]

I still think the dialogue for the Prequals isn't as well done

Maybe its because I've have grown up with OT dialogue and excepted it as the history that it is

Episode I's dialogue isn't bad, but the action lags a little bit

Episode II's dialogue makes it impossible to fall into the movie, especially in the romantic scenes, but the action picks up greatly

It tries to force the idea that Anakin is in love with Padme, instead of letting us see his feelings and his passion

And some of the dialogue is grossly out of character
ex. Obi-Wan's accesment of Anakin's botched rescue attempt
"Good Job!" Grrrr!

None off the dialogue provides character development, beyond who we already know:Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, etc.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It tries to force the idea that Anakin is in love with Padme, instead of letting us see his feelings and his passion
[/b][/quote]

Actually, you and I have a difference of interpretation on this. My interpretation is that, Anakin ISN"T in love with Padme, he is just, really, really, really obsessed with her, in a very unhealthy way. And she isn't in love with him, she is just attracted to him because he is the bad boy. Their relationship doesn't feel completely real because it isn't real, it is a fraud.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Episode II's dialogue makes it impossible to fall into the movie, especially in the romantic scenes, but the action picks up greatly
[/b][/quote]

Impossible strikes me as an exaggeration.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> still think the dialogue for the Prequals isn't as well done

Maybe its because I've have grown up with OT dialogue and excepted it as the history that it is
[/b][/quote]

I think that the dialogue in the OT is just as bad, and in many cases worse, than that in the PT. Examples:
"but I was gonna go down to Toshi station to pick up some power converters!"
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home"
"Look at the size of that thing!"
"then I'll see you in hell!" (this line in particular has always confused me)
"travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops!"
etc etc etc I think that fans have a real tendency to look at the OT through rose colored glasses frankly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And some of the dialogue is grossly out of character
ex. Obi-Wan's accesment of Anakin's botched rescue attempt
"Good Job!" Grrrr!
[/b][/quote]
What makes you think that line is out of character for Obi? The audience I attended with on opening night, it was their favorite, well that and "why do I get the feeling your'e going to be the death of me?" The point is, that Obi Wan has very little confidence in Anakin, and is extremely frustrated with Anakin's definance and arrogance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>None off the dialogue provides character development, beyond who we already know:Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, etc.
[/b][/quote]



Dialogue is the weakest ways to convey character development, in fact, dialogue is THE weakest way to convey an idea in a movie. Spelling everything out in words is never a good idea. Which is one of the reasons why I don't regard the dialogue of a movie as extremely important, too much dialogue = the death of subtlety. George himself will admit that dialogue has always been his weakest point, which is why he emphasizes visual imagery. I prefer films that convey their ideas visually, rather than verbally. Filmmakers like Hitchcock, Buster Keaton etc who emphasize visual ideas are my favorite. Give me a movie with little or no dialogue, and I will go positively ga ga over it. I believe in Hitchcock's dictum that directors should focus on visual, rather than verbal expressions.
So, I guess, what I am saying is, that you are correct, but it doesn't bother me that much, because dialogue is not really the proper medium for conveying character development anyway.

[Erick Landrider]

Good point on Anakin and Padme's relationship

Your free to interpret their love as you see fit, but I don't think Lucas is that deep to make it a "I want to Love you" situation
(Watch me eat my words after Ep.III)

Dialogue isn't the most important way of developing character, but it cannot be forgotten

Especially in a love scene(I'll assume Anakin does love Padme) their actions are strong, but at the point when he's pouring his heart out for her,(fireplace) this scene should be one the top on the list of "must be smoothe" dialogue

A character like Han Solo in the OT helped

His character allowed for those smart-@$$ one liners

Like I said, I've probably become used to lines; but I wouldn't use them in dialogue

Lines like "Good Job!" would be perfect for Han, but they're not in Anakin and Obi-Wan's personality (keep in mind Lucas has to stay honest to the Old Ben personality from the OT)

It might not be impossible, but its more difficult to stay entranced by the movie in a talking scene with bad dialogue

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif

[MegoHulk]

I think that the dialogue in the OT is just as bad, and in many cases worse, than that in the PT. Examples:
"but I was gonna go down to Toshi station to pick up some power converters!"
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home"
"Look at the size of that thing!"
"then I'll see you in hell!" (this line in particular has always confused me)
"travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops!"
etc etc etc I think that fans have a real tendency to look at the OT through rose colored glasses frankly.


BUt you see, these lines add a certain depth to the characters. Lukes lines fit his bratty kid image he has in ANH. Hans lines show him as the rogue smart ass that he is. Also the crop dusting line tells viewers that he can't just press a button and zoom away, theres some actual science involved in hyperspace travel. Now by the time we get to ROTJ the lines start to get a little worse and just goes downhill into the PT. Honestly all the lines you pointed out work perfectly in the OT, all the lines make sense in regards to the scenes they are in. I mean, take the line...Look at the size of that thing!...the next line being..cut the chatter red 2. It shows that rebellion forces are in fact alot of kids who might be seeing the first battle in their lives, they can't help but be in awe of the death star, wouldn't you be? The see you in hell line is a bit strong but works if you realize that friend is out there and no one seems to want to help look for him, so he grabs a Tauntaun and does it himself, I'd be pissed to if noone was gonna help me. I don't think its a case of rose colored glasses, the OT was just better, well at least the first 2 were. Maybe you can give better examples of lines you didn't like, cause all these work in my opinion. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Jedi Kum-ahK]

Originally posted by mtilden@Mar 25 2003, 04:14 PM

Uhhhh.... the Clone Wars WERE started by some evil forces, namely, the Sith, weren't you watching? The film was poorly edited, but even so, it made clear that the Republic had no choice but to attack, because they were soon going to be attacked by the seperetists.
I was watching, what i meant was that it was openly started by them, not in such a backstabbiing manner.

Anyway, I thouht this thread was just about sharing some ideas, and I didn't know there were other threads, I didn't know I waas going to get bashed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Well I think that its fair to say the PT dialogue is pretty bad; whether the OT is any better I'm still gonna have to say yes

But another problem I had with the PT is overuse of Computer Technology (hear me out on this please)

Granted, I know that the computer is an excellent tool to use in the making of a movie, especially a movie like Star Wars

But many of the shots, especially in Geonosis and even Kamino, don't look realistic

It really dawned on me after seeing the ATOCDVD; because a couple weeks later I had bought the Lord of the Rings DVD

It shows 2 complete different ways of shooting an adventure film

Lord of the Rings goes all out in making Moria, the breif shots of Mordor, and Rivendell as real and believable as possible

AOTC relies greatly on computer graphics, blue screen technology, and Rob Coleman's team of animators

Lucas could have asked for all the money in the world to make trips to sights that would have brought the final battle of Geonosis to life, like the battle of Helms Deep

I know that Star Wars is most famous for its stunning visuals, but I just don't think all of the locations look believeable

(Don't hate me)

[Mothman]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Mar 26 2003, 06:35 PM
But another problem I had with the PT is overuse of Computer Technology (hear me out on this please)

Granted, I know that the computer is an excellent tool to use in the making of a movie, especially a movie like Star Wars

But many of the shots, especially in Geonosis and even Kamino, don't look realistic
I totally agree. The use of CGI and other techno stuff has gotten out of hand.

If you've ever watched the "Making of..." documentary of ANH, the entire process is very low-tech (except for the motion-controlled cameras, which were new for that era). While the OT visuals were incredible, it was not because of great computer technology, but because these were things that we had never seen before (and not because of the almighty computer). These visuals were great because of imaginative shots, angles, etc.

[Darth Vegas]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>These visuals were great because of imaginative shots, angles, etc.[/b][/quote]

You can say the same thing about the visual effects in the PT Mothman. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[RollaFett]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Erick Landrider Posted on Mar 25 2003, 08:36 PM

And some of the dialogue is grossly out of character
ex. Obi-Wan's accesment of Anakin's botched rescue attempt
"Good Job!" Grrrr![/b][/quote]

I don't disagree with your assesment of the dialogue as a whole, but to pick on this line seems odd. Hell, it was one of the few comedic moments that actually worked, IMO. To say it is out of character is a little off base as well. Sure, Obi-Wan is no comedian, but he can unveal the occasional smart ass remark.
Example: "Who's the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> mtilden Posted on Mar 25 2003, 09:48 PM

I think that the dialogue in the OT is just as bad, and in many cases worse, than that in the PT. Examples:
"but I was gonna go down to Toshi station to pick up some power converters!"
"I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home"
"Look at the size of that thing!"
"then I'll see you in hell!" (this line in particular has always confused me)
"travelling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops!"
etc etc etc I think that fans have a real tendency to look at the OT through rose colored glasses frankly.[/b][/quote]

MegoHulk addressed this rather well already, so I'll just say I agree with him 100%.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Jedi Kum-ahK Posted on Mar 26 2003, 11:23 AM

Anyway, I thouht this thread was just about sharing some ideas, and I didn't know there were other threads, I didn't know I waas going to get bashed. [/b][/quote]

It's ok, I don't think anyone was trying to bash you. This is quite a civilized discussion, thus far. I have definately seen worse, especially when Bond makes an appearance. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif
As far as the comments about too much CGI, well, I can't argue with that, but not because the locations have been CGI. I have a problem with the amount of CGI characters being used.
Why was there not a single clonetrooper costume produced? Not one!
Also, was there really no way to have the Dexter character, other than CGI? I find that hard to believe. Jabba was done pretty well back in '83, I'm sure a real costume could've been made two decades later.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Mar 29 2003, 02:14 PM
Why was there not a single clonetrooper costume produced? Not one!

Well, they didn't look fake so it doesn't make a much of a difference IMHO, you really couldn't tell, especially in the final shot on coruscant.

Several people e-mailed Star Insider and AJC at starwars.com, because they could have sworn the clone trooper in the back of Obi-Wan and Anakin's gunship, and the troopers that were with Padme at Dooku's escape, and several others were a guy in a suit.

Of course none of them were, but none of them were animated either, in the traditional sense. They used complete digital scans of real actors and motion capture, the models and the movements were not made in the computer.

For a really good example, how about the shot with all the clone troopers in eating in the cafeteria, that was not a real actor, it was a merge between the likeness of Temuera Morrison and another younger actor. No one blinked an eye at that.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Mar 29 2003, 02:14 PM
Also, was there really no way to have the Dexter character, other than CGI? I find that hard to believe.
I agree with you there, he looked stupid, yeah that's the word, but it wasn't really him completely, it was the digital Obi-Wan when they hugged that looked like crap.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Jabba was done pretty well back in '83, I'm sure a real costume could've been made two decades later.[/b][/quote]

Jabba was flawless in TPM. ANH SE on the other hand.... style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, I thouht this thread was just about sharing some ideas, and I didn't know there were other threads, I didn't know I waas going to get bashed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif[/b][/quote]

I was not bashing you, sorry if you feel that way, but I wasn't. I have a rather blunt way of expressing myself, don't take it personally.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I know that Star Wars is most famous for its stunning visuals, but I just don't think all of the locations look believeable[/b][/quote]

Watch it is in digital and you will change your mind I think. You, like most of us, are probably watching an analog transfer of a digital image, which doesn't work for the best all of the time.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Why was there not a single clonetrooper costume produced? Not one! [/b][/quote]

Because they would have needed to produce several hundred thousand of them, that's why! And because digital is cheaper than paying to produce the suits. And, because manipulating a digital image is easier than telling a few thousand extras what to do. Plus, with a digital image, you can keep modifying it until you get exactly what you want, even until a few days before the opening, whereas using physical actors limits your options, you can't create new footage, you are stuck with what you have. Plus, consistency is important. It is important that the film have a visual consistency. If some of them were digital and some physical, it would be really obvious which were which, and it would look choppy. Think back to the Star Wars SE, namely, the scene where Han makes his suicide run on all of those stormtroopers. For the SE, they multilplied the number of stormtroopers digitally, and the mixture of physical and digital elements looks terrible. If you are going to go digital, it is important to go all the way, or it doesn't look convincing,

[RollaFett]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 Posted on Mar 29 2003, 07:07 PM

QUOTE (GollaFett @ Mar 29 2003, 02:14 PM)
Why was there not a single clonetrooper costume produced? Not one!


Well, they didn't look fake so it doesn't make a much of a difference IMHO, you really couldn't tell, especially in the final shot on coruscant. [/b][/quote]

I noticed something fishy on my first viewing, so I cannot agree that 'you really couldn't tell'.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>mtilden Posted on Mar 29 2003, 09:37 PM
QUOTE
Why was there not a single clonetrooper costume produced? Not one!


Because they would have needed to produce several hundred thousand of them, that's why![/b][/quote]

'Several hundred thousand'?
Perhaps I should've been more specific, there are several scenes where an actor in a costume would've been preferable, at least to me. I'm talking about close-ups and the like. Huge battle scenes, where there are hundreds of clonetroopers, well, then the CGI versions were perfectly acceptable.
Also, let's not forget that there were no CGI stormtroopers in the unaltered OT, ok? It can be done. It was just another example of GL trying to prove that technology has no limits.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 Posted on Mar 29 2003, 07:33 PM
QUOTE
Jabba was done pretty well back in '83, I'm sure a real costume could've been made two decades later.


Jabba was flawless in TPM. ANH SE on the other hand.... [/b][/quote]

Actually, I was only making a comparison between Jabba of '83 and Dexter of '02, not criticizing the CGI versions of Jabba. But now that you mention it, I agree with your assesment.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Mar 29 2003, 06:49 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 Posted on Mar 29 2003, 07:33 PM
QUOTE
Jabba was done pretty well back in '83, I'm sure a real costume could've been made two decades later.


Jabba was flawless in TPM. ANH SE on the other hand....

Actually, I was only making a comparison between Jabba of '83 and Dexter of '02, not criticizing the CGI versions of Jabba. But now that you mention it, I agree with your assesment. [/b][/quote]
Ok, I get you.

Yeah It would've been a nice throwback to the Jabba puppet Yoda Greedo to make Dex that way, but that's outdated now (and can be done better, not that they did in this case).

He could've been better only if he was a different looking alien that didn't need to be a puppet or cg, just a guy in make-up.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, let's not forget that there were no CGI stormtroopers in the unaltered OT, ok? It can be done.
[/b][/quote]


Your'e right, there were no CG stormytroopers in the original versions of the OT, but then, they didn't really need them did they? They never had more than a handful of stormtroopers in any one scene, so it wasn't necessary (and of course, they didn't have the technology to do it digitally back then anyway). But, for AOTC they did need digital clonetroopers for two scenes: on Kamino where Obi Wan sees the army for the first time, and at the end where we see Palpatine et al standing at the balcony watching the army. Doing either of those scenes with physical actors would have been.... too expensive and time consuming. Plus, remember, they are supposed to be clones, so they all need to be the same size and shape. This is pretty tough to pull off with actual physical actors. If you want them all to look exactly the same, the best way to accomplish this is to use digital effects. Once the decision was made to go digital with those two scenes, they really had no choice but to go digital with them all. In general, it is a bad idea to mix digital and physical images of the same object in the same scene, otherwise there is a visual choppiness about it, and it doesn't work. This is the same reason why they made a digital Yoda. They really only needed a digital Yoda for one scene, namely the one where he fights Dooku. But since, they needed a digital Yoda for that scene, they figured that it was best to make him digital for the whole film, so as not to introduce any visual inconsistencies. And, you may think that the closeup shots of the clone troopers look fake, but millions of moviegoers were fooled. Which is why TOS kept getting questions from people asking if the clonetroopers were real or digital. One guy actually made his own clonetrooper costumes, and then sold them on EBay claiming that they were 'authentic movie props', thousands of people fell for it before Lucasfilm put a stop to it by telling E-Bay that they were fake.
Now, your last comment

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> It was just another example of GL trying to prove that technology has no limits. [/b][/quote]


Or, another, less negative way of putting it is, that George wanted to push movie effects technology to its absolute limits, to try to figure out how far it could go. And what the hell is wrong with that? Every Star Wars movie has pushed the limits of technology, every Star Wars movie has broken new ground and created new technology. Making the most advanced effects possible, has always been one of the major goals of any Star Wars movie. And for George, 'raising the bar' technology wise, is one of the three or four things that makes the movie production process fun for him. As he himself admits on the DVD (I am paraphrasing but this is basically what he says) "One of the things that makes these movies fun for me, is that I am constantly challenging myself, and my crew. I no longer need to limit my imagination, I love tellling the FX crew what I am planning, and then watching their reaction as they tell me that it is impossible. But, they always surprise me by making something even better than what I imagined. I try to create impossible tasks for them, and I am amazed when they meet and exceed my expectation". He likes pushing himself and his crew, he likes the challange. There is nothing wrong with that.

[mtilden]

And I forgot about this 'un

In defense of the OT dialogue that I thought was hokey Megohulk said...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe you can give better examples of lines you didn't like, cause all these work in my opinion. [/b][/quote]

I never denied that they worked, or that they were appropriate for the characters, I just said that they were poorly written. For me, these lines of dialogue, always make me laugh, they are very risible. That doesn't mean that they aren't appropriate, they are just, hokey. I think that I could come up with equally plausible explanations for all the bad dialogue so far in the PT, but that doesn't mean that it isn't poorly written. Even dialogue which works can be poorly written. But, as I have said before, it doesn't matter to me all that much. I am not very concerned about the dialogue. Hitchcock's films always had crappy dialogue too, but he is still my favorite director.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by mtilden@Mar 30 2003, 09:04 AM
In general, it is a bad idea to mix digital and physical images of the same object in the same scene, otherwise there is a visual choppiness about it, and it doesn't work. This is the same reason why they made a digital Yoda.
Actually, it was because Frank Oz suggested it himself, it's in the doc on the TPM dvd, about how Yoda was digital in three shots in TPM.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by mtilden@Mar 30 2003, 09:04 AM
Plus, remember, they are supposed to be clones, so they all need to be the same size and shape. This is pretty tough to pull off with actual physical actors.
And that pretty says it, they HAD to be digital. But in keep in mind what I said before, they weren't animated, they were captured 100% from real actors, size, physical features, and all of there movements. See the docs on the AOTC dvd for more on that, there was an article in the Insider about that too I believe.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, it was because Frank Oz suggested it himself, it's in the doc on the TPM dvd, about how Yoda was digital in three shots in TPM. [/b][/quote]

Yeah, probably that too. And I know that they did mix digital and physical Yoda in TPM, when Yoda is walking at the end talking to Obi telling him that he would be promoted to Jedi knight, during a few shots he is digital. I think that this is the example which proves that mixing physical and digital images of the same character in the same movie is a bad idea, because, Yoda looks different in that scene, and it is apparent that he looks different. They did a decent job making Yoda look real in that scene, but the fact that he looks different than he does in other scenes stands out, at least it does to me anyway. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[Darth Vegas]

That's why Yoda was really a ways back from the screen in those CG shots in TPM, to keep out the details, it was a crappy model.

[mtilden]

Yes, I agree. They should have went all digital in TPM, or something. Oh well, it is experimental... they still got some bugs to work out.

[Darth Vegas]

Too true, Yoda in TPM was attrocioius, truly one of the only things I don't like about the PT is Yoda's look in TPM, I mean come on!!!

"When 870 years old you reach, look much different from when your 900 you will not, hmm!?"

[RollaFett]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>"When 870 years old you reach, look much different from when your 900 you will not, hmm!?" [/b][/quote]

LOL! I couldn't agree with you more!

Mtilden- I happen to agree with you, as well, regarding GL and his use of the technology. I admire his raisning the bar and so forth, my only gripe would be that he now seems as if he doesn't know when to take a step back. I understand that in huge scenes with the clonetroopers, it makes sense to use CGI. I felt that in particular scenes, such as a closeup, or just one trooper in a scene, etc., that an actual physical actor in a costume would've looked a little better. Did the clones look bad, not at all, but it was obvious that they were CGI. If he had used a real trooper here and there, I think it would've only helped. When you see hundreds of them, CGI makes perfect sense, and they looked awesome. When there is just one in a scene, I don't see why using the real deal wasn't done. As far as the cost goes, well, that's nonsense, I'm only talking about a handful of costumes, not dozens, or even hundreds. Does any of that make more sense?

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Does any of that make more sense?
[/b][/quote]

I never had any difficulty understanding you, I just think that making some clonetroopers real and others digital would have been... a mistake. If even one of those actors looked slightly off, fanboys everywhere would be screaming 'continuity error' style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif Some people complain that the CGI in AOTC looks too cartoonish, there are a few moments in the film where in I happen to agree with them, but what forget is, that other, older techniques also look cartoonish. Some people want to say that they prefer stop motion animation, but people forget that, when stop motion was introduced back in the early 60's, the number one complaint about it was... you got it 'too cartoonish' for example, "Jason and the Argonauts"..... the digital effects don't always work, but this is still an expiremental phase, and if we never use it, we will never be able to get the bugs out. So, that is basically why all the digital characters don't bother me. Digital charaters usually look better than the other kind. But, nowadays there probably too much reliance on digital effects, and if the digital Hulk in the movie really looks as bad as some people have said, then we may see less use of CGI in the future.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by mtilden@Mar 30 2003, 02:41 PM
But, nowadays there probably too much reliance on digital effects, and if the digital Hulk in the movie really looks as bad as some people have said, then we may see less use of CGI in the future.
That won't make a difference, the Hulk isn't that anticipated anyway, takea good look at the upcoming Matrix sequels, digital technology is on the rise....

[Erick Landrider]

(I'll just say this for argument sake)

The Star Wars films are some of the most successful films of all time, dollar wise

So whos to say that GL couldn't send out a wanted add saying
"Wanted: Well built 6'2 guys, only 500 positions availible, must not be chlostrophobic or alergic to plastic armor"

Once again, after seeing scenes in Lord of the Rings with a hundred real orcs marching out of Isengard (I'm talking about Fellowship, not 2 Towers) Its hard for me to beleive that Lucas couldn't find a huge ware-house, fill it with blue screen walls, and use that for the mass clone trooper scenes?

I think that would add an extra dimension to the reality of the clones


And about Dexter. When I first saw Ep.II, I thought that Dexter looked like one of the more realistic characters, compared to other CG actors we have seen before

The Kaminions seemed like a species that just made the CG effects show to much. And like I said before Kamino didn't seem belieable; inside or outside

With all the money Lucasfilm has they should be able to get some people tyo build those sets and hire some actors willing to wear some wierd make-up

Not so they look like the Kaminions; but to make them look like realisticly unusual aliens like Lucas has done before.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Mar 30 2003, 04:17 PM
So whos to say that GL couldn't send out a wanted add saying
"Wanted: Well built 6'2 guys, only 500 positions availible, must not be chlostrophobic or alergic to plastic armor"
There were hundreds of thousands of Clone Troopers on Geonosis, not 500.

I think the exact word was 500,000.

Besides, they all had to be EXACTLY the same.

And BTW they don't look fake, so does it really make a difference?

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Mar 30 2003, 04:17 PM
The Kaminions seemed like a species that just made the CG effects show to much. And like I said before Kamino didn't seem belieable; inside or outside
Kamino was completely a model and sets. The buildings themselves anyway. Water and digital characters were added later. Besides, it's a fantastic world full of things that are not real.

And Kaminoans do look real.

That's not an opinion, they do, I can see that clearly.

[Darth Vegas]

Are you honestly going to tell me that these look fake? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif

No it's the creature in my avatar that looks fake.

[RollaFett]

Uhhhhh......is that a trick question?
That scene I could live with, however, using actors in costumes was entirely possible, IMO.

Mtilden- Good to see that you understand, but upon reading the rest of your post, it seems as though you don't really get what I said. There are plenty of scenes where there is just a single clonetrooper, either giving a command or talking with another live actor, where GL easily could've used a real actor in a costume and the scene would've looked more legitmate. If that was done, I don't see how, if in the next scene, you see hundreds of CGI clonetroopers, that the fanboys would have a problem with it. I don't think it would be noticable. In the battle scenes where using CGI made sense, there were not nearly enough closeups where anyone would shout out, 'Hey, they aren't real!' You're continuity argument has no merit. No offense, by the way, I'm not trying to start a flame war between us.

Erick Landrider- It seems that we're almost on the same page, but not quite.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>So whos to say that GL couldn't send out a wanted add saying
"Wanted: Well built 6'2 guys, only 500 positions availible, must not be chlostrophobic or alergic to plastic armor"[/b][/quote]
Hard to argue with that, but here I go anyway. Sure, it's financially easy for GL to do that, however, it's still cheaper and it advances the technology if he does the huge battle scenes with CGI. As I have already stated, though, many of the close-ups and individual clonetrooper shots could possibly have been better with an actor in a costume.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And about Dexter. When I first saw Ep.II, I thought that Dexter looked like one of the more realistic characters, compared to other CG actors we have seen before[/b][/quote]
I guess it wasn't so much Dexter as it was using a CGI Obi-Wan that ruined it for me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The Kaminions seemed like a species that just made the CG effects show to much. And like I said before Kamino didn't seem belieable; inside or outside[/b][/quote]
I totally disagree with that. Although I do think that the Kamino design was kind of familar, I also think that they looked damn good, as did thier enviroment.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There are plenty of scenes where there is just a single clonetrooper, either giving a command or talking with another live actor, where GL easily could've used a real actor in a costume and the scene would've looked more legitmate. If that was done, I don't see how, if in the next scene, you see hundreds of CGI clonetroopers, that the fanboys would have a problem with it. I don't think it would be unnoticable. In the battle scenes where using CGI made sense, there were not nearly enough closeups where anyone would shout out, 'Hey, they aren't real!' You're continuity argument has no merit. No offense, by the way, I'm not trying to start a flame war between us.
[/b][/quote]

I think this is a civilized discussion we are having here. Anyway, the 'continuity problem' I am talking about is, the fact that the clones all have to look exactly alike, if they used real actors, they are going to some variations, minor but noticeable, and people would look at and say 'those are supposed to be clones, but they don't all look alike' you can try as hard as you like, but you aren't going to find people who look exactly alike, not even if you used real twins. I agree that this a very minor concern, but it is attention to these kinds of details that help create realism.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Mar 30 2003, 06:18 PM
Uhhhhh......is that a trick question?
That scene I could live with, however, using actors in costumes was entirely possible, IMO.
Uhh huh, and do you know how GL possibly could have hired 1000's of actors that had the exact same body frame?

Come on, it was much practical to do what they did, lazer scan Tamuera Morrison and another actor, merge those CG models together that were made off of exact scans of the actors, and then paint the armor unto the actor, along with using motion capture instead of animation.

There was no possible way to show that many clonetroopers at one time without making them 100% computer generated.

Now the shots of single clonetroopers on the other hand, such as the clonetrooper standing behind Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Padme in the gunship, that could've been a guy in a suit, and it looks like a guy ina plastic suit.

In many cases, the clonetroopers look more realistic then a guy in a suit because the costums always look like what they are: plastic, of course in the movie they aren't supposed to be wearing plasitc armor, it's supposed to be metal, and without CG they can't give it the right look.

So no matter how you put it, there was no way to do clonetroopers without some digital work.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Mar 31 2003, 01:31 AM
Are you honestly going to tell me that these look fake? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif

No it's the creature in my avatar that looks fake.


Bond -

The picture you posted looks like a great piece of art from a fab animated movie (it does look good) - but it doesn't look REAL.

I doesn't look like it's been filmed, it looks like it's been created and it looks fake.

[FerrisWiel]

I agree, Fab. It looks animated.

--FW

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Darth Badly@Mar 31 2003, 07:12 AM
The picture you posted looks like a great piece of art from a fab animated movie (it does look good) - but it doesn't look REAL.

I doesn't look like it's been filmed, it looks like it's been created and it looks fake.
Well the angles and the gist of the scene, a bunch of Star Deystroyers taking off of a Planet completely covered in a city, millions of clone troopers (that are exacly alike mind you further adding to the fantastic and not the real) marching and loading onto these ships, you the shot was obvious not filmed in real life with a real camera and a real enviroment. It's an alien world, God know what the eviroment is like, what materials things are made of, how they react to different light and so on.

The shot looks computer generated, because there is no way to do a shot like that with models and guys in suits, it's not so much that it look fake, but that it's obviously not possible to do that scene without CG. Plus it's in high definition.

It's not the same Star Wars universe right now, everything doesn't look "used" and it shouldn't, it's a brand new army, it looks surreal, wierd because of all of the troopers look exactly the same, all the ships look exactly the same, I'm sure by Episode 3 those things will have the proper Star Wars look to them, especially after they've been in war for 2-3 years.

[Javen]

Originally posted by Mothman+Mar 28 2003, 05:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mothman @ Mar 28 2003, 05:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Mar 26 2003, 06:35 PM
But another problem I had with the PT is overuse of Computer Technology (hear me out on this please)

Granted, I know that the computer is an excellent tool to use in the making of a movie, especially a movie like Star Wars

But many of the shots, especially in Geonosis and even Kamino, don't look realistic
I totally agree. The use of CGI and other techno stuff has gotten out of hand.

If you've ever watched the "Making of..." documentary of ANH, the entire process is very low-tech (except for the motion-controlled cameras, which were new for that era). While the OT visuals were incredible, it was not because of great computer technology, but because these were things that we had never seen before (and not because of the almighty computer). These visuals were great because of imaginative shots, angles, etc. [/b][/quote]
Hmmm...I wonder why they were low tech? Oh yeah...it was the 1970's...

[FerrisWiel]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Mar 31 2003, 01:13 PM
The shot looks computer generated, because there is no way to do a shot like that with models and guys in suits, it's not so much that it look fake, but that it's obviously not possible to do that scene without CG. Plus it's in high definition.
No, it looks similar to, but a bit more advanced than, renderings by PIXAR.
It looks almost like a scene from "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within"

--FW

[Darth Vegas]

Well yeah, because it was created in a computer, not because the things in the shot look fake.

[FerrisWiel]

Yes, because they look fake! Yes, because they look like they've been rendered on a PC and the quality is reminiscient of a video game! Now, when I look at a video game, like "Dead or Alive" or even FF:TSW I say, "That looks really good for computer animation!" But when I look at a movie combining live-action elements with CGI I want to say, "Waitasec, I thought they didn't actually make any Clone Trooper uniforms for this movie!" not "Wow, that looks great for CGI!" Now, to be fair, there were a couple of scenes where I thought that there were actual CT uniforms incorporated, but there were many more that looked like cutscenes from "Dark Forces."

--FW

[Darth Vegas]

I don't agree.

[Mann]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Hmmm...I wonder why they were low tech? Oh yeah...it was the 1970's... [/b][/quote]

JAven, the doctor Phil of the Galactic Senate. giving absolutely simple and obvious advice.

[RollaFett]

Bond, I was actually starting to find a new-found respect for you until I read this post......<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 Posted on Mar 31 2003, 03:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (GollaFett @ Mar 30 2003, 06:18 PM)
Uhhhhh......is that a trick question?
That scene I could live with, however, using actors in costumes was entirely possible, IMO.

Uhh huh, and do you know how GL possibly could have hired 1000's of actors that had the exact same body frame?

Come on, it was much practical to do what they did, lazer scan Tamuera Morrison and another actor, merge those CG models together that were made off of exact scans of the actors, and then paint the armor unto the actor, along with using motion capture instead of animation.

There was no possible way to show that many clonetroopers at one time without making them 100% computer generated.

Now the shots of single clonetroopers on the other hand, such as the clonetrooper standing behind Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Padme in the gunship, that could've been a guy in a suit, and it looks like a guy ina plastic suit.

In many cases, the clonetroopers look more realistic then a guy in a suit because the costums always look like what they are: plastic, of course in the movie they aren't supposed to be wearing plasitc armor, it's supposed to be metal, and without CG they can't give it the right look.

So no matter how you put it, there was no way to do clonetroopers without some digital work. [/b][/quote]
Did you actually read any of my previous posts?! It would seem as though you didn't, because if you did you would have come across these pearls of wisdom.....<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> I understand that in huge scenes with the clonetroopers, it makes sense to use CGI. I felt that in particular scenes, such as a closeup, or just one trooper in a scene, etc., that an actual physical actor in a costume would've looked a little better.[/b][/quote]...and.......<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> There are plenty of scenes where there is just a single clonetrooper, either giving a command or talking with another live actor, where GL easily could've used a real actor in a costume and the scene would've looked more legitmate. If that was done, I don't see how, if in the next scene, you see hundreds of CGI clonetroopers, that the fanboys would have a problem with it. I don't think it would be noticable. In the battle scenes where using CGI made sense, there were not nearly enough closeups where anyone would shout out, 'Hey, they aren't real!'[/b][/quote]
It's fine for you to disagree with me, but please, know what you're disagreeing with, ok?

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Mar 31 2003, 12:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Mar 31 2003, 12:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-GollaFett@Mar 30 2003, 06:18 PM
Uhhhhh......is that a trick question?
That scene I could live with, however, using actors in costumes was entirely possible, IMO.
Uhh huh, and do you know how GL possibly could have hired 1000's of actors that had the exact same body frame?

Come on, it was much practical to do what they did, lazer scan Tamuera Morrison and another actor, merge those CG models together that were made off of exact scans of the actors, and then paint the armor unto the actor, along with using motion capture instead of animation.

There was no possible way to show that many clonetroopers at one time without making them 100% computer generated.

Now the shots of single clonetroopers on the other hand, such as the clonetrooper standing behind Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Padme in the gunship, that could've been a guy in a suit, and it looks like a guy ina plastic suit.

In many cases, the clonetroopers look more realistic then a guy in a suit because the costums always look like what they are: plastic, of course in the movie they aren't supposed to be wearing plasitc armor, it's supposed to be metal, and without CG they can't give it the right look.

So no matter how you put it, there was no way to do clonetroopers without some digital work. [/b][/quote]
I saw them. I just don't agree that they could've done any Clonetrooper shot without a some CG work, not that they couldn't have used a guy in a suit, but that they would have to be for one thing, the same actor they used for the digital scans (note they used two actors so that's not entirely possible) and they would have to render some lighting effects to give the armor the right metal look so it wouldn't look like plastic.

It's not that they couldn't do it, it's that somewhere, somehow, someone would notice that something was a bit off

[RollaFett]

Ok, I misread part of that post. I didn't notice the 'plastic' comment. My bad, I see your point. I disagree, but I see that you saw my point and countered it. Sorry for getting on you about it.
That said, I already aknowledged that the scenes with large numbers of clonetroopers were better served with CGI, on a couple of occassions. There was no need to for you to explain it further, considering I didn't argue against it to begin with.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Mar 31 2003, 07:49 PM
Ok, I misread part of that post. I didn't notice the 'plastic' comment. My bad, I see your point. I disagree, but I see that you saw my point and countered it. Sorry for getting on you about it.
That said, I already aknowledged that the scenes with large numbers of clonetroopers were better served with CGI, on a couple of occassions. There was no need to for you to explain it further, considering I didn't argue against it to begin with.
Yeah we both misread eachother. No problem man.

[RollaFett]

Alright then, cool.

[Erick Landrider]

While we're all clarifiying ourselves

I didn't ultimatly think that the clones looked terrible

I just have a hard time believing that the shots would have looked worse with actual people in the clone trooper uniforms

And in the Geonosis scenes it would have been easy to shoot the 500 people 30 or so times and place them over the scape in the battle scenes (I know they did it with the Jedi in the Arena Battle)

And the Kaminions did look real, but I am a firm believer that no matter how advancments technology makes; there is no replacement for real people and real actors

Its not that the CGI looks bad, but real people just look better

[DarthNazgul]

I agree , but I think the newfound special effects are a great way to make the star wars world better , although it's different from the old star wars world we grew up to love.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Mar 31 2003, 08:43 PM
And in the Geonosis scenes it would have been easy to shoot the 500 people 30 or so times and place them over the scape in the battle scenes (I know they did it with the Jedi in the Arena Battle)
They didn't do that with the Jedi.

And there was no way on Geonosis when we see most of the army to do that with real people, becase 1: THEY ALL HAVE TO LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME, 2: THERE WERE 300,000 Clonetroopers on Geonosis, that again had to look the same.

[Erick Landrider]

Check the AOTC DVD (Web-documentaries:Making the action in Reel 6) it says they did that with the Jedi

And I doubt that we see anymore than a 1/5 of the army in any shot, and the clones don't have to look 100%, exactingly perfectally like each other, the storm troopers in the OT are proof of that.

And, unless you pan through the DVD frame-by-frame, counting each clone 1 at a time, it won't matter if there aren't 300,000 of them.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 2 2003, 09:12 PM
the clones don't have to look 100%, exactingly perfectally like each other, the storm troopers in the OT are proof of that.
No that's proof that they couldn't do it back then and that's the only reason they didn't.

Yes they did have to look 100% EXACTLY alike, they're called clones, making that very clear in this film, digital was the only way to go for most of the shots.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And I doubt that we see anymore than a 1/5 of the army in any shot[/b][/quote]

There are two key shots in the film where we see the ENTIRE army, well three really.

In the battle of Geonosis there are quite a few shots where there are thousands of clonetroopers.

Being that everything around them is digital almost for the whole film, it would be retarded not to make the clonetroopers digital.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 2 2003, 09:12 PM
Check the AOTC DVD (Web-documentaries:Making the action in Reel 6) it says they did that with the Jedi


Uh nope, you totally misinterpreted that. Watch again for yourself, all they said about the Jedi in that scene is that added each one of them in one at a time, minus the bit where they're all running towards the droids.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 3 2003, 12:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 3 2003, 12:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 2 2003, 09:12 PM
Check the AOTC DVD (Web-documentaries:Making the action in Reel 6) it says they did that with the Jedi


Uh nope, you totally misinterpreted that. Watch again for yourself, all they said about the Jedi in that scene is that added each one of them in one at a time. [/b][/quote]
Thats what I was talking about, except with the clones the would do it with a lot more people in the shot, instead if just one Jedi

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 3 2003, 12:28 AM
Yes they did have to look 100% EXACTLY alike, they're called clones, making that very clear in this film, digital was the only way to go for most of the shots.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And I doubt that we see anymore than a 1/5 of the army in any shot

There are two key shots in the film where we see the ENTIRE army, well three really.

In the battle of Geonosis there are quite a few shots where there are thousands of clonetroopers.

Being that everything around them is digital almost for the whole film, it would be retarded not to make the clonetroopers digital.[/b][/quote]
The armor takes care of the issue of clones looking exactly like each other, and no would notice a difference

And even if there is a shot where the entire army is seen, once again it wouldn't make a difference if you used actual people in clone uniforms

And the digital backrounds of Geonosis is another thing I brought up earlier; that the environments would be better if they used real places instead of digital sets

(And don't even try telling me that the company that acquired a majority of the profits from one of the most succesful movie series of all time would have troubles funding finding such a place)

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 3 2003, 08:01 PM
The armor takes care of the issue of clones looking exactly like each other, and no would notice a difference

NO it doesn't see: Classic Trilogy. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 3 2003, 08:01 PM
(And don't even try telling me that the company that acquired a majority of the profits from one of the most succesful movie series of all time would have troubles funding finding such a place)
Well that's exactly what I'm going to tell you, because no such place exists.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And the digital backrounds of Geonosis is another thing I brought up earlier; that the environments would be better if they used real places instead of digital sets
[/b][/quote]


Hmmm.... you want them to find a real place that looks like 'a nest made as made by a wasp or similar insect, that looks like something that the Geonosians made with their own saliva'?.... Where do you suggest they go to find such a place? Real sets are fine, but often real sets look more fake than digital sets (for example, the Mt. Rushmore scene from "North by Northwest") and at other times the location is so imaginary that no real place exists that could be used as a set, or building a real set would be too time consuming and/or expensive. But, none of the sets in this film are completely digital, they are a mixture of digital and physical effects. Some parts of the sets are digital and some are minitures. And I submit that it is impossible to tell the difference which are which. I for one, have been quite surprised to see the 'image attack' items on TOS, many of them are minitures of things that I assumed must be digital. And many of the things that I thought must be physical, have turned out to be digital. I too thought that at least some of the clone troopers were real, and was quite surprised to find out that they were not.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 4 2003, 02:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 4 2003, 02:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 3 2003, 08:01 PM
The armor takes care of the issue of clones looking exactly like each other, and no would notice a difference

NO it doesn't see: Classic Trilogy. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif [/b][/quote]
I don't see what your talking about (give me an example)

[Darth Vegas]

:eek:

Try watching the damn film, the stormtroopers don't all look the same, the armor fits differently, they're different heights, different body frames, noticably wearing plastic armor........

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 4 2003, 02:51 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 4 2003, 02:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 3 2003, 08:01 PM
(And don't even try telling me that the company that acquired a majority of the profits from one of the most succesful movie series of all time would have troubles funding finding such a place)
Well that's exactly what I'm going to tell you, because no such place exists. [/b][/quote]
Of coarse theres no such place as the Geonosis that was seen in AOTC.

There has to be all kind of places in the Mid-West with a rocky and mountainous terrian

(and just to clear some things up, I'm not totally against CGI in films. Its virtually mandatory with a film like Star Wars. I just beleive that if there is a way to make something look more natural or someone look more life like, it should be done)

Those "saliva" towers built as models and added in later or could be added digitally after ward.

BTW- Right on, with Mt. Rushmore in North by Northwest

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 4 2003, 05:01 PM
(and just to clear some things up, I'm not totally against CGI in films. Its virtually mandatory with a film like Star Wars. I just beleive that if there is a way to make something look more natural or someone look more life like, it should be done)
Well again in some cases, like right here, natural isn't the point, it's fantastic, it's out of this world, you can't have something in a film that could never be real look completely real.

There's different physics in Star Wars, different designs and materials, it's not an adventure that takes place on Earth long ago, like "The Lord of the Rings".

And your argument is kind of getting stupid, cause basically your saying even if things look real you still don't like CG, you'd rather a guy in a plastic suit be replicated a thousand million times into a film (which would not only take forever to do but would end up looking really bad) than simply put digital characters into a digital background

That's just dumb.

When you become a filmmaker than you can make a real opinion on the matter. Becuase this stuff is alot harder than you seem to believe it is filmmakers can't just go it to real locations all of the time sometimes hardly at all especially in this type of film.

You really don't seem to have a clue here at all as to how CG is absolutely necessary for the type of things they're doing in these fims, things that are impossible without it.

Maybe one of the reasons the original Star Wars seems to be more realistic (which is not the goal) is because half the time they're inside of a ship or a building, something that can easily be done on set, while things like Geonosis and Naboo have to be digital, not entirely but mostly, because those sorts of terrains to DO NOT exsist ANYWHERE. There are a fews places in the western US that sort of resembles Geonosis, but not big enough, not close enough to the look they needed, there isn't a big enough erea that actually looks like that.

And on CG characters, yes it's Star Wars, it's a galaxy far far away, we need things that do not look at all human, at all like a guy in a suit or a puppet, we need things that look alien, CG characters rule for the most part. There is only a select few that really don't look right, the majority of them look just fine for the shots they are in and the situations they encounter.

Muppets and models without any cg is not a solution to the problem (see: old Star Trek movies and the original version of Star Wars), the solution is more films that incorporate CG so they can make it look more real. Which isn't George Lucas' goal with Star Wars, it's supposed to be fantastic and sur-real, it's not supposed to look like the national park you visit during the summer, or your backyard, or downtown.

I suppose you think the Battle of Yavin looked better before the Special Edition. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>you can't have something in a film that could never be real look completely real.[/b][/quote]

That is exactly what I was going to say! You stole my line! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif That is what this comes down to, nothing, in a movie which is not real, no fantasy creature, no fantasy set, will ever look completely real, it is simply impossible. Digital techniques are a little better than the more traditional ones (at least some of the time) but nothing, not real sets, not stop motion, not guys in suits, will ever look entirely real.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 5 2003, 07:03 PM
And your argument is kind of getting stupid, cause basically your saying even if things look real you still don't like CG, you'd rather a guy in a plastic suit be replicated a thousand million times into a film (which would not only take forever to do but would end up looking really bad) than simply put digital characters into a digital background


I'll admit, I don't know jack about Hollywood bugdeting, agents, funding, and how all of works together

You're probably right, that a guy in a plastic suit being replicated wouldn't look as good as the digital clones, (I havn't seen it so I wouldn't know)

It's probably just my conservative values getting in the way of fully enjoying the galactic fantasy realms of AOTC

But I just think, that if I were a writer/director with a last chance to show of the world that I created,perfected, and made a success; I would take out all the stops to make it look real

And maybe thats what Lucas did, with Geonosis (which is my only real problem with Ep. II worlds)

I won't argue with Coruscaunt (for obvious reasons), Naboo (many sets there are or look real), or Tatoine

Like I said before I don't entirly oppose CGI in films,
but in my opinion in most cases the more realistic the environments are, the easier it is for fans to focus on the characters and the plot (which makes the movie more than an ILM demo)

P.S.- I haven't seen the Special Edition since I was 10 and I really don't remember the differences

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>P.S.- I haven't seen the Special Edition since I was 10 and I really don't remember the differences[/b][/quote]

:eek: Changing the topic ever so slightly, this is exactly why those of us who were around in 1977 when this all began, want to preserve the originals as we remembered them from 1977, 1980 and 1983 by releasing two different DVD versions. Preserve the Original-Original Trilogy!

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 6 2003, 03:11 PM
P.S.- I haven't seen the Special Edition since I was 10 and I really don't remember the differences
Ahhh, I see that makes a huge difference, you're only 15. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 6 2003, 09:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 6 2003, 09:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 6 2003, 03:11 PM
P.S.- I haven't seen the Special Edition since I was 10 and I really don't remember the differences
Ahhh, I see that makes a huge difference, you're only 15. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/b][/quote]

First of all I'm a proud 16 year old

And just out of curiosity, whats that^ suppose to mean? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sly.gif

[Darth Vegas]

Well when you're a bit older, you begin to understand things a bit better.

Age does matter.

Age=time=time to learn more things, read more things, and become more intelligent and versed on the subject.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as you become older, your opinion becomes more educated.

[RollaFett]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as you become older, your opinion becomes more edjucated. [/b][/quote]

And in that time, you learn how to spell the word, 'educated'. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 6 2003, 11:13 PM
Age=time=time to learn more things, read more things, and become more intelligent and versed on the subject.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as you become older, your opinion becomes more educated.
I see what you mean, and I'll probably understand more later on

No hard feelings.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by GollaFett@Apr 6 2003, 08:18 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but as you become older, your opinion becomes more edjucated.

And in that time, you learn how to spell the word, 'educated'. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif [/b][/quote]
:look:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>No hard feelings.[/b][/quote]

No problem, I didn't mean anything personnal by that, but most young folk seem to debate things pretty simplistic, I don't like this, I don't like that, I don't agree with that, or as Martini and Soontir Solo would say "That's stupid!" Hehehe.

Just because something looks fake or looks real (as Clonetroopers do), doesn't mean it wasn't neccessary to do it CG or they could've done it another way, generally it means there was no current way to execute that shot in complete realism or no other way to make it look real.

[Erick Landrider]

I see what you mean alot of shots in AOTC ( Clone War shots, Kamino, Coruscaunt, and a lot of Jango's battle sequences) need to be done with visual effects and CGI

The main point I have is that there were a lot of shots in AOTC that, while they didn't look entirly fake, could have been done with out CGI, and looked more real

(lets not turn this into another argument I know I won't convince you otherwise and I'm going to hold to my conservative guys in plastic suit ideals)

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 6 2003, 09:00 PM
The main point I have is that there were a lot of shots in AOTC that, while they didn't look entirly fake, could have been done with out CGI, and looked more real
And the main point I have is that CG as much as it has been used in the PT, was almost entirely neccesary for those shots. Including the clonetroopers. Even if they had used guys in suits (which wouldn't look exactly right) they would still have to use CG to copy those guys thousands of times over and over again and then place them into the scene. Which would in fact look alot more fake than just adding in CG clonetroopers which could be manipulated and fixed to fit the shot perfectly.

These guys are experts, they know what they're doing, they know what to use when and where.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 7 2003, 12:18 AM
Even if they had used guys in suits (which wouldn't look exactly right) they would still have to use CG to copy those guys thousands of times over and over again and then place them into the scene. Which would in fact look alot more fake than just adding in CG clonetroopers which could be manipulated and fixed to fit the shot perfectly.

I see your logic on that point

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Mar 31 2003, 07:13 PM
... the shot was obvious not filmed in real life with a real camera and a real enviroment.

Well, there we can at least agree. I think it looks fake (like a cartoon) and that spoils my enjoyment of a SW film.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 7 2003, 06:18 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 7 2003, 06:18 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 6 2003, 09:00 PM
The main point I have is that there were a lot of shots in AOTC that, while they didn't look entirly fake, could have been done with out CGI, and looked more real
And the main point I have is that CG as much as it has been used in the PT, was almost entirely neccesary for those shots. Including the clonetroopers. Even if they had used guys in suits (which wouldn't look exactly right) they would still have to use CG to copy those guys thousands of times over and over again and then place them into the scene. Which would in fact look alot more fake than just adding in CG clonetroopers which could be manipulated and fixed to fit the shot perfectly.

These guys are experts, they know what they're doing, they know what to use when and where. [/b][/quote]

Let's not forget that it was Uncle George's choice to write the story the way it was in the first place. He could have written something else (better) that didn't call for those shots.

One of Uncle George's great pieces of bulls**t was that he was waiting to make the prequels until the technology was there to do them justice. Well, obviously it isn't there yet, or you and I and everyone else in this thread wouldn't be having this discussion about how crappy some of the CGI stuff was in Attack of the Clowns.

I love you all.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>First of all I'm a proud 16 year old
[/b][/quote]

I am quite surprised to hear that you are this young... you come across as much older and more mature ( I really mean that)

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Darth Badly@Apr 7 2003, 03:43 PM
Well, obviously it isn't there yet, or you and I and everyone else in this thread wouldn't be having this discussion about how crappy some of the CGI stuff was in Attack of the Clowns.
There are millions and millions of fans out there, I hear about 5 percent complaining.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Darth Badly+Apr 7 2003, 06:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darth Badly @ Apr 7 2003, 06:43 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 7 2003, 06:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 6 2003, 09:00 PM
The main point I have is that there were a lot of shots in AOTC that, while they didn't look entirly fake, could have been done with out CGI, and looked more real
And the main point I have is that CG as much as it has been used in the PT, was almost entirely neccesary for those shots. Including the clonetroopers. Even if they had used guys in suits (which wouldn't look exactly right) they would still have to use CG to copy those guys thousands of times over and over again and then place them into the scene. Which would in fact look alot more fake than just adding in CG clonetroopers which could be manipulated and fixed to fit the shot perfectly.

These guys are experts, they know what they're doing, they know what to use when and where.

Let's not forget that it was Uncle George's choice to write the story the way it was in the first place. He could have written something else (better) that didn't call for those shots.

One of Uncle George's great pieces of bulls**t was that he was waiting to make the prequels until the technology was there to do them justice. Well, obviously it isn't there yet, or you and I and everyone else in this thread wouldn't be having this discussion about how crappy some of the CGI stuff was in Attack of the Clowns.

I love you all. [/b][/quote]
You need to check the early posts at this thread

"This is not a Thread for Prequal Bashing"

You say what you see what is wrong it, you say what you would have liked to have seen done and say it respectfully.

Save this matierial your "Attack of the Clowns" thread

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by mtilden@Apr 7 2003, 09:09 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>First of all I'm a proud 16 year old


I am quite surprised to hear that you are this young... you come across as much older and more mature ( I really mean that) [/b][/quote]
Thank you very much (and I really mean that)

I won't let it go to my head style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/hehe.gif

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, there we can at least agree. I think it looks fake (like a cartoon) and that spoils my enjoyment of a SW film.[/b][/quote]

Looks fake? You mean like the Rancor or the Sarlaac in ROTJ? Or like the Wampa is TESB? Or do you mean to compare it to the pre special edition landspeeder in ANH? Or, the worst effect of all, the surface of the Death Star in ANH?

[Erick Landrider]

Just as a simple thought, not a debate point. I don't think that those scenes look so terrible.

Not as good, no. But not terrible.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Just as a simple thought, not a debate point. I don't think that those scenes look so terrible.
[/b][/quote]
My point is, that they don't look as good as they would if the effects were done digitally. I don't see how even Badly can dispute that.

[Erick Landrider]

Alright, another thing that I just thought of.

It's not really a porblem in the Prequals, but what if, instead of Naboo, the Trade Federation had a blockade against Alderean?

It would be a very good way to link the Original Trilogy to the Prequal Trilogy in the opening roll-up.

[Erick Landrider]

Okay another few things I just thought of

Why couldn't we have seen more of Darth Maul

I thought he was a great character and an obvious crowd pleasure ,of sorts

He would have added alot more to the the Jedi/Sith relationship in terms of contrast and an actual symbol, other than the Emporer. that we can assciate with the Sith

And how about Anakin being older when we see him in Ep I

This could add alot to the early signs of the darkness and would add more to his relationship with Padme

[mtilden]

My answers:

1. Darth Maul is not a very important character (even within that film) he exists only to die, no need to see more of him. He strikes me as a possible 'Fonzie' by which I mean, a character who is really cool when you see him only a little, but who gets really annoying when you see him alot. Just like Fonzie!

2. George wanted Anakin to be 'innocent' when we met him, and in Lucas films (just as in Spielberg) innocence often = youth. If we want to see the progression from innocence to darkness, it is important not to give him too much darkness at the beginning. To the argument 'well it hard to believe that this innocent little boy could grow up to be Darth Vader' my response is 'that is exactly the point'.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 11 2003, 01:57 PM
Why couldn't we have seen more of Darth Maul

I thought he was a great character and an obvious crowd pleasure ,of sorts
He looks cool, but he had no character. His motivation was to die at Obi-Wan's hands so Obi-Wan could become a Jedi Knight, and thus take Anakin Skywalker as his Padawan.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007+Apr 12 2003, 06:06 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007 @ Apr 12 2003, 06:06 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Erick Landrider@Apr 11 2003, 01:57 PM
Why couldn't we have seen more of Darth Maul

I thought he was a great character and an obvious crowd pleasure ,of sorts
He looks cool, but he had no character. [/b][/quote]
Thats just the thing

If he had a more , or any, character he would be a lot more interesting to watch

Not the "I am evil. Kill Jedi. Evil is me. Seek Revenge. I am Evil." shadow of a personality

Having characters, both good and evil, who go across the films is one of the best things about film serieses (hey, I not an English major)

And that theory could also have helped the audience warm up to Anakin in Ep.II better

They could have a feeling that they new the character instead of going on what the audience rememsbers from Ep.I and where they think his personality should be

And if the Clone Wars started at the end of Ep. I, it would give you the sense that the PT was meant to be together as a true trilogy, not just three movies

[Darth Vegas]

He couldn't be too developed, because there's more important things.

Maul wouldn't be a good leader for the Confederacy.

[Erick Landrider]

You're right, Maul had the diplomacy of sand paper in Ep.I

But that job could have been taken care of by some one else

They still could have had a Dooku like figure. Not a Jedi, but a strong political voice and it could have been revealed at the very end that he was in league with them as Maul was found in the hanger for the final battle

[mtilden]

But what possible purpose could be served by allowing Maul to live? If he were to be 'given more depth' then that would destroy the very thing that fans such as yourself love about him! He is cool, precisely because he 'has no depth'... it is the completely arbitrary nature of his violence and hostility, that people like. But, the only reason why Darth Maul is even in the movie at all, is to set up Episode II. As George put it 'one of the major subplots of the prequels is that Darth Sidious keeps running out of apprentices'. Darth Maul's death is needed to set up Sidious going after Anakin. Why does Sidious go after Anakin? Because he needs a new apprentice since his other ones keep dying on him, and because he doesn't have the time to train someone new, so he needs someone who has already been trained, i.e. a Jedi. So, even Dooku, a much more interesting character than Maul, is a very minor character, the only reason that Dooku is in the movie, is to foreshadow the fall of Anakin, because it shows that Sidious's temptations are strong enough to cause even a Jedi to stray. Neither Maul nor Dooku, is really that important in the long run.

[Darth Vegas]

Maul no, but Dooku yes, he's very important, former master of Qui-Gon Jinn, founder of the CIS (which IMO becomes the Rebel Alliance), he started the Clone Wars along with Sidious, and IMO he will also duel Anakin Skywalker in which Anakin will kill him onlt to be tempted to the Dark Side of the Force, so yes Dooku is very important, not to mention he also hired Jango Fett at the request of Darth Sidious thus setting up the mega cool bounty hunter from the OT. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[mtilden]

Sure, he did all that, but compared to Anakin, Yoda, or Obi Wan, he is a pretty minor character. Probably won't get more than 10 minutes screen time in Episode III. I see him dying in the beginning. I like Dooku, I just think that like Maul his role is mostly to be a stand in, until the really cool apprenetice comes in, Vader.

[Darth Vegas]

No, he'll have quiet a role in Episode 3 much more than ten minutes that's just disrespectful killing him off so quickly, he probably won't die until the middle of the movie when Anakin kills him.

[Raganork8]

I think dooku willl have a big enough role in episode three as the battle between political views grows dooku will be responsable for many more seperations And I think he'll tempt anakin.

[mtilden]

I am willing to change my opinion of his importance, if he has a bigger role in Episode III. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif I just don't see him having much screen time. '10 minutes' does not necessarily mean 'first 10 minutes' it could be the last 10 minutes, or even, 10 minutes spread out over the whole movie.

[Raganork8]

Plus I think goerge is doing that thing he did with mace you know start out small in one movie so he can have a bigger role in the next.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> Plus I think goerge is doing that thing he did with mace you know start out small in one movie so he can have a bigger role in the next. [/b][/quote]

As Obi Wan likes to say ... 'possibly'... we'll have to wait and see!

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by mtilden@Apr 20 2003, 03:50 PM
But what possible purpose could be served by allowing Maul to live? If he were to be 'given more depth' then that would destroy the very thing that fans such as yourself love about him! He is cool, precisely because he 'has no depth'... it is the completely arbitrary nature of his violence and hostility, that people like.
Well, I think that in some ways you could say the same thing about Vader in ANH. The only difference is we see a bit of his history. Going into TESB, we knew nothing more of his character than he was a traitor to the Jedi & a great warrior and pilot. The same aproach could have been taken with Maul, like I said someone else would have had to be diplomatic with the Sepratists, but I think it would have worked very well.

[Darth Vegas]

I think they can tell us about Maul in E3 without seeing him, for instance, I happen to believe it will be revealed that Sidious is Sifo-Dyas, in the very scene we can also discover that Maul was Sifo's apprentice in the Jedi Order just before Sifo defected, when he left the order, he took the young Maul with him, gives the character some motivation, and explains the whole Sidious/Palpy mystery fairly simply.

[Darth Coil]

This is defenitely Spoiler talk, doesn't belong here. ???

BTW: Bond, I am starting to find your opinion about the Sifo/Sidious topic a little more grounded, but still a little far fetched.

[Frendon]

Originally posted by mtilden@Apr 8 2003, 09:31 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, there we can at least agree. I think it looks fake (like a cartoon) and that spoils my enjoyment of a SW film.

Looks fake? You mean like the Rancor or the Sarlaac in ROTJ? Or like the Wampa is TESB? Or do you mean to compare it to the pre special edition landspeeder in ANH? Or, the worst effect of all, the surface of the Death Star in ANH? [/b][/quote]
style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif he got you there Badly!!

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Well, I think that in some ways you could say the same thing about Vader in ANH. The only difference is we see a bit of his history. Going into TESB, we knew nothing more of his character than he was a traitor to the Jedi & a great warrior and pilot. The same aproach could have been taken with Maul, like I said someone else would have had to be diplomatic with the Sepratists, but I think it would have worked very well. [/b][/quote]


Sure, you could do that, but why? Why? Why? What possible purpose could it serve? It would just be a distraction from the real story here. Darth Maul is a completely disposable character, he exists only to die, so as to justify Sidious trying to turn a Jedi. That is it, that is the only reason that he is in the movie at all. We could also give Boba Fett a much bigger role in TESB, but why would we? I wouldn't add anything to the movie at all.

[Erick Landrider]

Okay, I see your point

But there is a difference, the Darth Maul we know is no diffrent than Boba Fett in TESB, except for a load of camera time.

But say Darth Maul lives, (lets not worry about how) Seeing him in Attack of the Clones gives a solid bad guy, like Vader was. Some one they already know to be afraid of, that the audience doesn't have to relearn his character

And maybe he could be like Dooku in that, Sidious only keeps him around to have Anakin kill him

No doubt, it would cause a sizable restructuring of the plot, but (I think I said this already, but I'm not sure) seeing the characters develop and grow is the difference between three movies and a trilogy.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But say Darth Maul lives, (lets not worry about how) Seeing him in Attack of the Clones gives a solid bad guy, like Vader was. Some one they already know to be afraid of, that the audience doesn't have to relearn his character[/b][/quote]


Yet another reason to kill off Maul in TPM. George wanted Dooku to be 'mysterious' (even says so in the opening scroll), to be appear morally ambigious, so that you wouldn't know if he was a good guy or a bad guy. I think that, George wants us to be confused about the clone army, whether they are good or bad, and to be uncertain about the Kaminoans, if they are good or bad. AOTC is basically George's attempt at a (greatly simplified) film noir, like The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon If Darth Maul were still around, you would lose this element of confusion and mystery.

[Erick Landrider]

Darth Maul wouldn't have to involved with the Sepratists until the end duel, with Anakin and Obi-Wan, and have (I guess he could keep the same name) Dooku then be revealed as a conspiritor with the Sith.

Like I said there would have to be alot of plot re-structuring to have this done, and get Maul a decent amount of camera time, but IMO it would end up being the effort

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Like I said there would have to be alot of plot re-structuring to have this done, and get Maul a decent amount of camera time, but IMO it would end up being the effort [/b][/quote]


What I am not understanding her is why do you want Maul to have more time?

[Erick Landrider]

Its the three movies verses a trilogy idea basically

I give you an example: When I saw 'The Two Towers', it was great for me to see the characters from the first film in new situations and building on to the same characters I saw in 'Fellowship of the Ring'.

But you have to have both good and bad returning charaters and images, to make the audience feel as though its the same story they are watching, just continued and delayed a couple years.

Granted there are returning images like the battle droids, Sidious and Nute Gunray to challenge returning characters Obi-Wan and Padme (Anakin doesn't really count, because he in himself is a new character). The effect would still be there, but Darth Maul would greatly add to it.

[Darth Vegas]

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy starting after the Fellowship leaves Rivendell takes place over a matter of weeks, there's a big difference with the time frame, it's one continuous story, in fact it's one book, it was written as one book, and it was split up when they published it.

Big difference with SW, there was often years between the Episodes and GL writes each one of them separately.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Granted there are returning images like the battle droids, Sidious and Nute Gunray to challenge returning characters Obi-Wan and Padme (Anakin doesn't really count, because he in himself is a new character). The effect would still be there, but Darth Maul would greatly add to it.[/b][/quote]

He had nothing to add to the story, he was the scary bad guy, and as Mtilden said, he would have ditracted from the mystery of the film.

Looking at this statement: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Darth Maul wouldn't have to involved with the Sepratists until the end duel[/b][/quote] it's obvious that you're just grasping for straws, there's no plausible was to have fit Maul into Episode 2, except to clone him, Maul would have only distracted from the story, and besides that, if Obi-Wan hadn't killed Maul he wouldn't have been allowed to train Anakin, the whole reason the Council decided Obi-Wan was ready to do so, was because of his heroics against the Sith Lord, if Obi-Wan hadn't killed Maul, Maul would've killed Obi-Wan, and not only that, Naboo would be in the hands of the Federation.

We didn't need Maul, we had Fett and Dooku, case closed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 21 2003, 08:27 PM
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy starting after the Fellowship leaves Rivendell takes place over a matter of weeks, there's a big difference with the time frame, it's one continuous story, in fact it's one book, it was written as one book, and it was split up when they published it.

Big difference with SW, there was often years between the Episodes and GL writes each one of them separately.



It may take place over a long period of time and the styles of those who wrote the stories may be different, but the effect is the same

And it doesn't matter over how long the plot takes place as long as the characters remain constant. A general audience member doesn't think about how long the elapsed between in a movie, unless it makes a major change in the plot and/or characters. Good movies keep you interested, well enough so that they don't.

[Erick Landrider]

Originally posted by Agent Bond A.K.A. TK-007@Apr 21 2003, 08:27 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Granted there are returning images like the battle droids, Sidious and Nute Gunray to challenge returning characters Obi-Wan and Padme (Anakin doesn't really count, because he in himself is a new character). The effect would still be there, but Darth Maul would greatly add to it.

He had nothing to add to the story, he was the scary bad guy, and as Mtilden said, he would have ditracted from the mystery of the film.

Looking at this statement: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Darth Maul wouldn't have to involved with the Sepratists until the end duel[/b][/quote] it's obvious that you're just grasping for straws, there's no plausible was to have fit Maul into Episode 2, except to clone him, Maul would have only distracted from the story, and besides that, if Obi-Wan hadn't killed Maul he wouldn't have been allowed to train Anakin, the whole reason the Council decided Obi-Wan was ready to do so, was because of his heroics against the Sith Lord, if Obi-Wan hadn't killed Maul, Maul would've killed Obi-Wan, and not only that, Naboo would be in the hands of the Federation.

We didn't need Maul, we had Fett and Dooku, case closed. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/b][/quote]
He wouldn't have to take up as much time as he did in AOTC as in TPM. And as I said before, there would have to be sizable plot reconstruction allow Maul to have a notable part in AOTC.

Maybe even if Darth Maul was replaced with a different character, who could fit more naturally into the role. But my basic point is the PT needs a significant bad-guy who could span all three films.

And I wasn't grabbing at straws with that last bit. Maul, or who-ever, could have been shown through-out the film, probably like in TPM, talking with Sidious. And after the arena battle, I can easily imagine a non-fighter version of Count Dooku,(in other words: strong as a politic, but a wimpy warrior) running to the hanger to the waiting Darth Maul, saving his own hide to avoid the Jedi.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 21 2003, 07:40 PM
He wouldn't have to take up as much time as he did in AOTC as in TPM.
Give it up man. We don't see him until the end of the film, he doesn't add anything to the film except he's this really cool guy at the end of the film? That's just silly, people would be like WTF!?! :eek:

[Erick Landrider]

He would be seen through out the film, but in a different context.

Seeing Maul at the end, would be the ultimate show of "Dooku's" true intentions.


If you won't admit that Maul could have helped the PT, than atleast agree that the PT needs a bad-guy that could challenge the Jedi through-out the trilogy

[Darth Vegas]

Already has that, his name is Darth Sidious, and we do see him throughout the movie.

The PT is a mystery, it's all about Darth Sidious using people to do his bidding, to make his ideal government come forth, this isn't the same type of series as the OT, it's meant to be, it doesn't need those type of things to better the plot, those kinda things only distract.

Darth Maul played his part, he had nothing else to do, and that's that.

[Erick Landrider]

Ten years from now when someone want to make a movie on the War in Iraq; do you think they are going to focus on George W. Bush as a major player?

Sidious is the leader, he orders people to do things. And he hasn't recieved enough screen time to fill that role. He has three lines in AOTC as Darth Sidious.

[Darth Vegas]

Palpatine is Darth Sidious dude, that's the only type of major villian the Prequels need, the Trilogy wouldn't be any better with Darth Maul throughout it, it would have suffered, AOTC needed Count Dooku, he fit the bar perfectly, Darth Maul just wasn't needed anymore, he served his purpose, and until some better conversation comes up, I'm done with this thread.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by mtilden@Apr 10 2003, 12:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Just as a simple thought, not a debate point. I don't think that those scenes look so terrible.

My point is, that they don't look as good as they would if the effects were done digitally. I don't see how even Badly can dispute that. [/b][/quote]

Well, I certainly would dispute it. I didn't have a big problem with any of those scenes. Sure, they're not what I would pick out as the best moments of Special Effects in the SW trilogy, but they're OK. The hairy snow beast in ESB is a bit dodgy, but he's carefully kept out of shot most of the time.

When those old style effects look fake, it's because you can see that its a model or just a guy in a suit, which isn't great, but at least there's something real there. When CGI looks fake, you realise that there's NOTHING there except a bunch of animated pixels. CGI also makes (some) filmmakers (yes, you Uncle George) imagine that 1/ They can show anything on screen and it'll look good. Big mistake. AND 2/ That the wizz bang smart new CGI effects will cover for a lack of a well crafted narrative. They won't.

I love you all.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 8 2003, 04:35 AM
Erick Landriderte Quote

You need to check the early posts at this thread

"This is not a Thread for Prequal Bashing"

You say what you see what is wrong it, you say what you would have liked to have seen done and say it respectfully.

Save this matierial your "Attack of the Clowns" thread


I've already read the early posts thanks, matey.

The conversation naturally lead into a discussion of the merits and negatives of CGI - so I'll post my opinions where I like, thanks very much for your concern.

[Darth Badly]

Originally posted by Erick Landrider@Apr 22 2003, 05:04 AM
Ten years from now when someone want to make a movie on the War in Iraq; do you think they are going to focus on George W. Bush as a major player?

Sidious is the leader, he orders people to do things. And he hasn't recieved enough screen time to fill that role. He has three lines in AOTC as Darth Sidious.


I agree with Eric here completely.

One of my big problems with AOTC is the lack of a proper villain. Lord Vader gave orders AND did things himself.

I don't think that splitting the villain's role into MASTERMIND (Darth Sid) and ACTION MAN (Maul / Count Duckular) helped the story any.

That was the problem with TPM (IMHO) - the whole idea of doing a film with some nebulous villian that no ones knows is even there until the very end might be an interesting interlectual challenge, but it sure ain't a great film.

I love you all.

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Its the three movies verses a trilogy idea basically

I give you an example: When I saw 'The Two Towers', it was great for me to see the characters from the first film in new situations and building on to the same characters I saw in 'Fellowship of the Ring'.

But you have to have both good and bad returning charaters and images, to make the audience feel as though its the same story they are watching, just continued and delayed a couple years.

Granted there are returning images like the battle droids, Sidious and Nute Gunray to challenge returning characters Obi-Wan and Padme (Anakin doesn't really count, because he in himself is a new character). The effect would still be there, but Darth Maul would greatly add to it. [/b][/quote]

You already have returning characters... the ones that matter, namely Yoda, Mace, Obi Wan, Anakin, Padme, Palpatine etc etc etc..... Character die in Lord of the Rings too, long before the end, in fact, major characters die before the end of Fellowship. Not every character gets to see the end of the story.
Grand Moff Tarkin died in ANH, did it hurt the rest of the trilogy?

[mtilden]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That was the problem with TPM (IMHO) - the whole idea of doing a film with some nebulous villian that no ones knows is even there until the very end might be an interesting interlectual challenge, but it sure ain't a great film.
[/b][/quote]


So Badly, you mean that your'e not a fan of Shakespeare then? As many have noted, the prequels are largely based on Othello, a popular play with a 'nebulous villian that no one knows is even there until the end'. Palpatine plays the role of Iago, whom the hero, Othello, doesn't know is an enemy until the very last seconds of the play. Sorry, but this is a very common, almost universal, motif that are you complaining about here. It has been used many times in literature.

[Darth Badly]

Thanks mtilden. If you're defending the lack of proper villains in the prequels that you just shot a very large hole in your own foot.

Personally, I don't think that the prequels have much in common narratively with Othello.

The thing about Othello though is that althou