Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Discussion >> RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! Page: <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 12:59:55 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I'm re-watching the PM.  First of all it's too complicated for kids, the scroll at the beginning reads like nonscence.  Chapters 4 - 6 were so easy to understand.  Second of all the CGI is already looking dated, I don't believe that Jar Jar is in the same scenes as the Jedi.  Why does JP look so good still when it was made in 1993 and yet this CGI looks poor already?


Because Jurassic Park has about a dozen CG shots whereas the prequels have several thousand each.


Most of the CGI still looks pretty good, it's Jar Jar who's out of place.  When the Jedi's look at him the eye level is off and he doesn't sit well with the background.

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 1291
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 7:44:11 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I'm re-watching the PM.  First of all it's too complicated for kids, the scroll at the beginning reads like nonscence.  Chapters 4 - 6 were so easy to understand.  Second of all the CGI is already looking dated, I don't believe that Jar Jar is in the same scenes as the Jedi.  Why does JP look so good still when it was made in 1993 and yet this CGI looks poor already?


Because Jurassic Park has about a dozen CG shots whereas the prequels have several thousand each.


Most of the CGI still looks pretty good, it's Jar Jar who's out of place.  When the Jedi's look at him the eye level is off and he doesn't sit well with the background.



The Jar Jar fx look fine to me as well as the eye levels from the actors.They had Ahmed Best do the scenes with the actors wearing the suit and then cgid in the character later.


_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1292
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 8:53:44 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12190
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I'm re-watching the PM.  First of all it's too complicated for kids, the scroll at the beginning reads like nonscence.  Chapters 4 - 6 were so easy to understand.  Second of all the CGI is already looking dated, I don't believe that Jar Jar is in the same scenes as the Jedi.  Why does JP look so good still when it was made in 1993 and yet this CGI looks poor already?

I might be alone on this, but I think the first Brachiosaurus we see is quite blurry.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1293
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 10:03:55 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
For me the prequels hit a real low with Clones. Sith isn't much better, but its not as bad. Both films are just terrible looking movies. They remind me of Knightmare, that old kids tv show from the early 90's.



I don't think Menace looks too bad. A lot of the sets and the props look cheap, but at least they look tangible. Jar Jar Binks looks terrible on Blu-ray though. Like I said in my initial reaction to the disc, he simply looks "stuck on" on top of the regular film. it's garish.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1294
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 10:21:50 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: darth silas

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I'm re-watching the PM.  First of all it's too complicated for kids, the scroll at the beginning reads like nonscence.  Chapters 4 - 6 were so easy to understand.  Second of all the CGI is already looking dated, I don't believe that Jar Jar is in the same scenes as the Jedi.  Why does JP look so good still when it was made in 1993 and yet this CGI looks poor already?


Because Jurassic Park has about a dozen CG shots whereas the prequels have several thousand each.


Most of the CGI still looks pretty good, it's Jar Jar who's out of place.  When the Jedi's look at him the eye level is off and he doesn't sit well with the background.



The Jar Jar fx look fine to me as well as the eye levels from the actors.They had Ahmed Best do the scenes with the actors wearing the suit and then cgid in the character later.



Yeah but you're a huge Sw's fan, can you be objective? Have you seen the PM in HD yet?  I just can't suspend my disbelief with Jar Jar like I can with some of the other CGI creations. 

< Message edited by theoriginalcynic -- 18/10/2011 10:27:24 PM >

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 1295
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 10:24:23 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12190
Joined: 30/9/2005
How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1296
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 10:26:58 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


Oh he looks great, I'm not sure if it's the wings (or what) but he fits in with the background nicely.

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 1297
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 18/10/2011 10:31:44 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 1298
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 1:29:12 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.


Yeah its quite funny that what is essentially a side character in the film looks more convincing than the big showcase one that was supposed to "change everything" and "push the vfx boundaries". Although I do think Jar Jar looks more realistic than Jake Lloyd.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1299
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 8:33:20 AM   
Castor Troy


Posts: 7076
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Rocky's graveside

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.


Yeah its quite funny that what is essentially a side character in the film looks more convincing than the big showcase one that was supposed to "change everything" and "push the vfx boundaries". Although I do think Jar Jar looks more realistic than Jake Lloyd.


I think Watto looks amazing - especially in Attack Of The Clones.


_____________________________

The individual human mind. In a child's ability to master the multiplication table, there is more holiness than all your shouted hosannas and holy holies. An idea is more important than a monument and the advancement of Man's knowledge more miraculous than all the sticks turned to snakes and the parting of the waters.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1300
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 2:08:17 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Castor Troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.


Yeah its quite funny that what is essentially a side character in the film looks more convincing than the big showcase one that was supposed to "change everything" and "push the vfx boundaries". Although I do think Jar Jar looks more realistic than Jake Lloyd.


I think Watto looks amazing - especially in Attack Of The Clones.



Jar Jar looks fine in Attack too, but I thought this was about Menace?

(in reply to Castor Troy)
Post #: 1301
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 2:37:32 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9142
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.


i dont think Watto looks so hot anymore, he doesn't look any better than the rest of the FX.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1302
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 2:56:02 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
There are plenty of shots where Jar Jar is fairly seamlessly integrated. It's the ones where he isn't, that jerk us out of the film, that we remember - for all the wrong reasons. Watto was in far fewer shots so his hit/miss ratio was far better.

It is easy to forget just how groundbreaking Episode I was. if only for the sheer bulk of effects shots it dwarfed anything previously attempted. It is to be expected that some bad ones would get through. There is only so much rendering time, money and personnel to be shared around. Add to that it was a blend of cutting edge digital techniques and legacy film-making. It was a film years ahead of its time: much as the original Star Wars was. All three prequels were.

By far the worst shot in Episode I (in my opinion at least) was one without any digital characters. It was a shot during the Gungan battle where a number of Trade Federation tanks press forward after the Gungan shields are disabled. It is jarringly low resolution and sticks out like a sore thumb. It is one of the worst effects shots I have ever seen.

But all effects films have bad shots here or there. Even the Lord of the Rings films are beginning to show their age. And some of the shots in those films were pretty poor to begin with. There are plenty of shots where Gollum doesn't perfectly blend in if I'm being hyper critical, especially in Two Towers: and he's far from the worst of it.

Perhaps Star Wars gets it worse because it is Star Wars.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 1303
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 3:34:41 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12190
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Castor Troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

How does Watto look in HD? For all the hype around Jar Jar it's Watto who I can totally suspend disbelief for when I watch the DVD, he's an incredible achievement.


He's not as bad, but a lot of people have voiced their concerns over him too, albeit not as vocally as they have done with Sir JarJar of Binks.


Yeah its quite funny that what is essentially a side character in the film looks more convincing than the big showcase one that was supposed to "change everything" and "push the vfx boundaries". Although I do think Jar Jar looks more realistic than Jake Lloyd.


I think Watto looks amazing - especially in Attack Of The Clones.


I can't remember how Watto looked, but I remember thinking that a lot of the cgi critters in AOTC looked incredibly shiny, compared to how they looked in TPM and ROTS anyway.

Ooh, what about Jabba? I think he looks about a million times better in TPM than he does in ROTJ, but again I've not seen him in HD.

(in reply to Castor Troy)
Post #: 1304
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 4:04:26 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
I'm watching Clones now, the HD transfer is mint.  Some of the scenes take your breath away, like the waterfalls when Anakin and Padme are sitting on the grass.

Which is the best HD transfer in the forums opinion?


< Message edited by theoriginalcynic -- 19/10/2011 4:08:53 PM >

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 1305
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 4:22:35 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9142
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
ROTS has the best overall PQ however im not a huge fan of the video look, so the best film transfer IMO is TPM, despite the slightly egregious DNR.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1306
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 4:41:06 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
Watto doesn't look as convincing in AOTC as he did in TPM - not on my TV anyway.  

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1307
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 4:42:27 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

ROTS has the best overall PQ however im not a huge fan of the video look, so the best film transfer IMO is TPM, despite the slightly egregious DNR.


At the risk of drifting off topic, how would you define "the video look?" And why do you think Episodes II and III look more like video than Episode I?

After all Blu-ray is a video format.

I 'm curious to know if your opinion matches mine.

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1308
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 5:37:44 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9142
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
i meant the fact that TPM was shot on film and to my eyes looks much better as a result, rather than AOTC and ROTS which were shot on hi definition video. I've never been a huge fan of hi def video of natural things like people and locations and have always preffered film in that regard. I think TPM looks better on the blu ray than AOTC, i think the hi def video look of AOTC kind of suffers. ROTS looks better than AOTC.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1309
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 5:50:24 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

i meant the fact that TPM was shot on film and to my eyes looks much better as a result, rather than AOTC and ROTS which were shot on hi definition video. I've never been a huge fan of hi def video of natural things like people and locations and have always preffered film in that regard. I think TPM looks better on the blu ray than AOTC, i think the hi def video look of AOTC kind of suffers. ROTS looks better than AOTC.


But what is it about Clones that makes you look at it and say, "it looks like it was shot on video" as opposed to Menace which makes you say, "it looks like it was shot on film?"

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm genuinely curious what it is that you see that makes one look different to the other. It can't be the grain as that has been fairly well eliminated, and that can be faked anyway.

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 1310
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 5:52:03 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

There are plenty of shots where Jar Jar is fairly seamlessly integrated. It's the ones where he isn't, that jerk us out of the film, that we remember - for all the wrong reasons. Watto was in far fewer shots so his hit/miss ratio was far better.

It is easy to forget just how groundbreaking Episode I was. if only for the sheer bulk of effects shots it dwarfed anything previously attempted. It is to be expected that some bad ones would get through. There is only so much rendering time, money and personnel to be shared around. Add to that it was a blend of cutting edge digital techniques and legacy film-making. It was a film years ahead of its time: much as the original Star Wars was. All three prequels were.

By far the worst shot in Episode I (in my opinion at least) was one without any digital characters. It was a shot during the Gungan battle where a number of Trade Federation tanks press forward after the Gungan shields are disabled. It is jarringly low resolution and sticks out like a sore thumb. It is one of the worst effects shots I have ever seen.

But all effects films have bad shots here or there. Even the Lord of the Rings films are beginning to show their age. And some of the shots in those films were pretty poor to begin with. There are plenty of shots where Gollum doesn't perfectly blend in if I'm being hyper critical, especially in Two Towers: and he's far from the worst of it.


Perhaps Star Wars gets it worse because it is Star Wars.



I agree with most of this however I think I should raise a few points. You're right about Gollum, there are a few shots in TTT where he doesn't fully 'blend in' (in particular the scene at the Black Gate sticks out) however I think comparing the two is a little unfair considering the circumstances. On TPM Lucas had at his disposal the best vfx house in the world (at the time), ILM and with a far larger effects budget than LOTR. Jackson was working with a new and relatively untested effects house (WETA, now the best in the world FYI) and with a smaller vfx budget and team. When you look at the quantum leap between the two digital characters, separated by only a couple of years you see how much more significant Gollum was to the vfx world, particularly to motion capture, look at how Andy Serkis is celebrated around the world and has essentially forged a career in mo-cap.

Second your point about the prequels being groundbreaking and that "Episode I was. if only for the sheer bulk of effects shots it dwarfed anything previously attempted. It is to be expected that some bad ones would get through" kind of raises an issue. The OT were also groundbreaking in their own right (especially IV and V) and how many crap effect shots do they have that have dated so badly over time in comparison the the PT? I would argue not nearly as much, which I think says a lot about Lucas and his over reliance on CGI in the latter films. If the prequels had been less dependant on greenscreen sets and the over use of CGI maybe all those dodgy shots of Jar Jar et all would've worked out a little better for them.





_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1311
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 6:46:44 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

I agree with most of this however I think I should raise a few points. You're right about Gollum, there are a few shots in TTT where he doesn't fully 'blend in' (in particular the scene at the Black Gate sticks out) however I think comparing the two is a little unfair considering the circumstances. On TPM Lucas had at his disposal the best vfx house in the world (at the time), ILM and with a far larger effects budget than LOTR. Jackson was working with a new and relatively untested effects house (WETA, now the best in the world FYI) and with a smaller vfx budget and team. When you look at the quantum leap between the two digital characters, separated by only a couple of years you see how much more significant Gollum was to the vfx world, particularly to motion capture, look at how Andy Serkis is celebrated around the world and has essentially forged a career in mo-cap.


Episode I was released in May 1999. The Two Towers was released in December 2002. That is close to 3 years of R & D which in VFX terms is an age of men. I'd be shocked if, given the nomadic existence of a freelance VFX artist, there weren't more than a few former ILMers working at WETA at the time.

Gollum was a staggering achievement, although as with all mo-capped humanoids there is occasionally something of the uncanny valley about him. I have, however no interest in getting into the ILM vs WETA debate as I have no side to cheer, or debating whether Gollum is a better realised character than Jar Jar (he is by the way, as he bloody well should be seing as he came 3 years later: digital Yoda is a better comparator and I'm not arguing that either).

My point was and is all films which use VFX, especially when they are pushing the envelope, have the occasional less than perfect shots.

quote:

Second your point about the prequels being groundbreaking and that "Episode I was. if only for the sheer bulk of effects shots it dwarfed anything previously attempted. It is to be expected that some bad ones would get through" kind of raises an issue. The OT were also groundbreaking in their own right (especially IV and V) and how many crap effect shots do they have that have dated so badly over time in comparison the the PT? I would argue not nearly as much, which I think says a lot about Lucas and his over reliance on CGI in the latter films. If the prequels had been less dependant on greenscreen sets and the over use of CGI maybe all those dodgy shots of Jar Jar et all would've worked out a little better for them.


There were plenty of dodgy effects shots in the Original Trilogy, most of which were cleaned up for the Special Editions. Take Episode IV as it was in 1977 and you have massive amounts of mismatched grain as you go from shot to shot whenever there is an optical.

Some shots really do look awful if you remove the blinkers of nostalgia.

The Star Destroyer in the opening shot had a huge matte line around it (it was re-composited in 1981 when they re-did the scroll to add "A New Hope" which is the version we became familiar with until 1997).

The shot of the landspeeder going toward Mos Eisley is horrible, as is the shot soon after where there is an ugly orange blob underneath it where they tried to rotoscope out the Reliant Robin chassis from under it.

Some shots in the final dogfight were poorly composited and were clearly models.

That isn't to say I don't ever want to see them again, but they do look bad through modern eyes, but in a different way to aged CG.

As we got to Episodes V and VI they got better and better at their craft and the glaring shots got less and less. You had the see through cockpits during the snow battle, the jerky stop-motion of the AT-ATs (which actually works given their mechanical nature but still ages the scene)

In some shots Yoda is clearly a rubber puppet.

A couple of the long shots of Cloud City had really poorly composited cloud cars.

In Episode VI there were huge matte lines around the Rancor and some really bad rotoscoping on the establishing shot of the sail barge.

Throughout there were shots where Tie Fighters  popped out of nowhere or dissappeared, some of which still exist on the Blu-ray.

The Emperor's slugs.

And theses are just the ones I can think of from the top of my head.



(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1312
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 7:46:39 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
^ I used to own the 'original' OT on VHS so am well aware of the flaws pre '97 SE's. My point is even some of the dodgy rotoscoping and stop motion date better than wonky CGI work. For my money real sets and models hold up better than digital sets and characters, even if you can "see the wires" to use a term. Compare CGI Jabba in TPM (or that horrible one in the ANH SE) to the original puppet Jabba in Jedi. The puppet wins hands down as does (imo, this may be controversial) the original Yoda to the CGI one.

And I'm not looking at this through rose tinted nostalgia, I recognise and appreciate some of the effects clean ups and improvements the SE's brought, especially erasing the matte lines and the see through snow speeder interiors.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1313
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 9:01:37 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1160
Joined: 2/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

^ I used to own the 'original' OT on VHS so am well aware of the flaws pre '97 SE's. My point is even some of the dodgy rotoscoping and stop motion date better than wonky CGI work. For my money real sets and models hold up better than digital sets and characters, even if you can "see the wires" to use a term.


I agree that real sets are better than virtual ones. They are also vastly more expensive: especially on the scale we're talking about. The Star Wars prequels had a budget to keep to and it wasn't as vast as might be supposed. CG sets and set extensions (using not a small amount of good old fashioned model work) were the only way to achieve the desired effect without spending 3 times as much.

quote:

Compare CGI Jabba in TPM (or that horrible one in the ANH SE) to the original puppet Jabba in Jedi. The puppet wins hands down as does (imo, this may be controversial) the original Yoda to the CGI one.


The CG Yoda is far preferable to the thing they used in Episode I. I prefer puppet Yoda too (and I doubt it is a controversial opinion), but he doesn't look any more real. Look at his toes when Luke tucks him into bed in Jedi for example. I can't not see it. It doesn't mean I think the whole scene is ruined or the technique is bad. And there are some things we can't get a puppet to do.

All we are doing is looking at two ways to solve the same problem. They both have drawbacks, neither look 100% like living breathing creatures. Once you get over that it becomes a matter of personal preference.

Same thing with Jabba. The puppet is great, in many ways Stuart Freeborn's masterpiece. But pretty much all it could do was lie on its dias, move its arms and tail, and open and close its mouth to lip-synch. Independent locomotion wasn't a consideration.

When they came to put him into Star Wars they were limited to the footage shot in 1976. I'm surprised he fits as well as he does (I refer to the 2004 version, the 1997 version is irredeemably awful). Even if they did stump up the million dollars plus it would cost to build a new puppet it couldn't do what was necessary. Of course they could have just kept the scene in the cutting room, but that is a different argument.

The Jabba in Episode I is fine. But then again the shots were designed around him rather than trying to shoe-horn him into 20 year old footage of a large Irishman.

quote:

And I'm not looking at this through rose tinted nostalgia, I recognise and appreciate some of the effects clean ups and improvements the SE's brought, especially erasing the matte lines and the see through snow speeder interiors.


I never took you for a blinkered purist. Your posts are far too reasoned (not to mention reasonable) to be one of them.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1314
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 9:23:22 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


I agree that real sets are better than virtual ones. They are also vastly more expensive: especially on the scale we're talking about. The Star Wars prequels had a budget to keep to and it wasn't as vast as might be supposed. CG sets and set extensions (using not a small amount of good old fashioned model work) were the only way to achieve the desired effect without spending 3 times as much.


Or Lucas could've scaled back a little and not have the prequels take place over 10,000 locations. More doesn't necessarily mean better.

quote:

I never took you for a blinkered purist. Your posts are far too reasoned (not to mention reasonable) to be one of them.


Why thank you, its good to know at least some people here think I have a reasoned opinion of Star Wars, unlike some [cough,cough].




_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 1315
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 9:53:35 PM   
Darth Marenghi

 

Posts: 3217
Joined: 10/10/2010
From: Manchester
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

There are plenty of shots where Jar Jar is fairly seamlessly integrated. It's the ones where he isn't, that jerk us out of the film, that we remember - for all the wrong reasons. Watto was in far fewer shots so his hit/miss ratio was far better.

It is easy to forget just how groundbreaking Episode I was. if only for the sheer bulk of effects shots it dwarfed anything previously attempted. It is to be expected that some bad ones would get through. There is only so much rendering time, money and personnel to be shared around. Add to that it was a blend of cutting edge digital techniques and legacy film-making. It was a film years ahead of its time: much as the original Star Wars was. All three prequels were.

By far the worst shot in Episode I (in my opinion at least) was one without any digital characters. It was a shot during the Gungan battle where a number of Trade Federation tanks press forward after the Gungan shields are disabled. It is jarringly low resolution and sticks out like a sore thumb. It is one of the worst effects shots I have ever seen.

But all effects films have bad shots here or there. Even the Lord of the Rings films are beginning to show their age. And some of the shots in those films were pretty poor to begin with. There are plenty of shots where Gollum doesn't perfectly blend in if I'm being hyper critical, especially in Two Towers: and he's far from the worst of it.

Perhaps Star Wars gets it worse because it is Star Wars.




The most realistic summation of the prequel effects I've seen in this thread, I think.


< Message edited by Darth Marenghi -- 19/10/2011 9:54:17 PM >


_____________________________

Invisible Text for SPOILERS: "color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color" , then change the quotation marks to square brackets.


(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 1316
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 11:35:35 PM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
I like AOTC - it's nowhere near as bad as the fan base would have us believe.  There I said it 

< Message edited by theoriginalcynic -- 19/10/2011 11:36:29 PM >

(in reply to Darth Marenghi)
Post #: 1317
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 19/10/2011 11:49:46 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I like AOTC - it's nowhere near as bad as the fan base would have us believe.  There I said it 


I am shocked that someone with a AOTC AV would like AOTC.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1318
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 20/10/2011 12:09:30 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I like AOTC - it's nowhere near as bad as the fan base would have us believe.  There I said it 


I don't think its that bad. Its by far the worst in the series (even if it does contain my favourite moment in the whole saga), but my bigger concern is with just how ugly the film is. It just looks dreadful.

(in reply to theoriginalcynic)
Post #: 1319
RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! - 20/10/2011 12:18:04 AM   
theoriginalcynic

 

Posts: 6521
Joined: 10/4/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

I like AOTC - it's nowhere near as bad as the fan base would have us believe.  There I said it 


I am shocked that someone with a AOTC AV would like AOTC.



I added that two hours ago.  I was looking for a Padme avatar (just a happy coincidence.)

< Message edited by theoriginalcynic -- 20/10/2011 12:21:17 AM >

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 1320
Page:   <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> DVD Discussion >> RE: Star Wars Blu-ray Set in the Works Official !! Page: <<   < prev  42 43 [44] 45 46   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125