Star Wars discussion

[Sailears]

Strangely I still haven't seen Episode 8 or 9. I got a bit turned off by 7. Enjoyed the prequels more than 7 - at least they still had some iconic soundtracks (eg duel of the fates, across the stars...).

Rogue One was decent though. Didn't see Solo. And waiting for the right time to sign up for Disney+ free trial, because between Netflix/prime/etc it's annoying to justify yet another exclusive service. :/

[One-Eye the wildcat]

I didn't like the sequel trilogy. Solo was good, if a bit unnecessary.

[TheRedSnifit]

The sequels are unoffensive and unexceptional (I did like Rogue One though), the prequels are terrible. It's kind of impressive how hard they dropped the ball with this franchise after Return of the Jedi.

[The Shadow of Korriban]

the prequels are terrible.

Without the prequels Clone Wars wouldn't exist.   Also, George Lucas is a very talented man...  He just doesn't know how to write a movie.

[Kade Rivok]

I'm still waiting for a Star Wars movie to explore the existence of the Whills

The sequels are unoffensive and unexceptional (I did like Rogue One though), the prequels are terrible. It's kind of impressive how hard they dropped the ball with this franchise after Return of the Jedi.

Yeah, I like Rogue One as well.  And the prequels... there's some definite cool stuff in there, but George Lucas needed some wrangling in like he had for the original trilogy.  You'll find that many extremely talented people usually need something like that 

Plus, I think one of the defining differences between the original trilogy and the prequels (apart from storytelling) is how they were made.  Of course, for the originals, everything had to be done practically, because cg wasn't a thing; but, just being done practically doesn't make something good.  If you look at some of the behind the scenes stuff on how they did what they did, it's seriously impressive and, at the time, groundbreaking.  Then for the prequels, it kinda just became "MAKE EVERYTHING A BLUE SCREEN.  MAKE EVERYTHING CG," and I personally think that that approach negatively affected how the movies felt.  I'm simplifying things to make a point, of course, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with CG when it's done well.  I just feel that its use in the prequels was only to try and make things easier rather than making things more... impressive, I guess?

[The Shadow of Korriban]

Many uses of CGI in the prequels were necessary.  Such as Mr. Yoda himself.  If they had made Yoda a puppet for Episodes II and III, bad things were likely to brew.   How would practical effects work for a puppet battling Sith folk at high speeds?  And can you imagine using practical effects for the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin?

I just feel that it's use in the prequels was only to try and make things easier rather than making things more... impressive, I guess?

Wowie.  How do you think the opening scene in Episode III would have looked if they hadn't used CGI?  Bad, would be my guess.

[Captain Wortshire]

If I remember correctly, CGI effects in films were a big thing in the late 1990 to early 2000's.

[Kade Rivok]

CGI is still very big now, it's just gotten much better looking 

Many uses of CGI in the prequels were necessary.  Such as Mr. Yoda himself.  If they had made Yoda a puppet for Episodes II and III, bad things were likely to brew.   How would practical effects work for a puppet battling Sith folk at high speeds?  And can you imagine using practical effects for the battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin?

I just feel that it's use in the prequels was only to try and make things easier rather than making things more... impressive, I guess?

Wowie.  How do you think the opening scene in Episode III would have looked if they hadn't used CGI?  Bad, would be my guess.

That doesn't disprove what I said, though.  The CGI at the time wasn't quite up to snuff, in my opinion, for some of the stuff they were trying to do with it, but was still used for almost everything regardless.  For many of the Coruscant shots, the background cityscape looks fantastic, but then you see the actors and it's like "Wow, they're obviously just on a soundstage."  And you're correct that it allowed shots that may have not been able to be done without it, but in that case maybe they should've changed the shots or the scenes so that they didn't require as much CGI.  Mixing practical and CG elements can be a great way to hide the CGI so that it doesn't stick out as much (and this was done to great effect in certain parts).  But, if you make everything CG and then just drop the actors in on top of that, it doesn't look that great.  At least, at the time it didn't.

And I'm not saying using CGI is bad; there were tons of stuff in the prequels that looked fantastic and used CGI.  But, there were also things that didn't look good that didn't need to be CG, but they were.  Take the clones for instance.  I don't think there was any good reason for them to be fully CG.  Having actors, and then background CG clones would've looked much better.

Though, all this talk regarding CGI doesn't have much bearing on current CGI.  That stuff is friggin' magic 

[The Shadow of Korriban]

Think what you will, my pal.  I shall do the same.

[Kade Rivok]

Well yeah, I never said you were wrong to think what you think, ya know.  I was just stating, and defending, my opinion. 

[Hickory]

From an artistry standpoint, the prequels were also George Lucas testing out a technology that had not really been put to great use beforehand. I imagine he was heavy handed with its use on purpose for the sake of "blazing a trail" for usage of CGI, so to speak, or at the very least indulging his artistic desires (for better or for worse).

Wowie.  How do you think the opening scene in Episode III would have looked if they hadn't used CGI?  Bad, would be my guess.

There are examples of brilliantly done, large-scale battle sequences being made years before Revenge of the Sith came out. While I admit that a battle of that scale had never been done before with such detail, certainly major aspects of it (ships crashing, numerous vessels on screen at once, a clear sense of it being a "large" engagement) have been done before. For example, the 1997 film Starship Troopers:

I've timestamped the part that I think best illustrates my point, but the entire clip has several examples. To my recollection, ILM (the visual effects company founded by George Lucas for Star Wars) worked on this film. I think that it's a superb example of why CGI is not always necessary in large quantities – many of the shots in that clip are done with practical effects.

[Kade Rivok]

From an artistry standpoint, the prequels were also George Lucas testing out a technology that had not really been put to great use beforehand. I imagine he was heavy handed with its use on purpose for the sake of "blazing a trail" for usage of CGI, so to speak, or at the very least indulging his artistic desires (for better or for worse).

Hmm, I'd never thought of it like that before.  That's a very good point!

[Sebias of Redwall]

I only started the prequels a while back, so I'm not entirely sure what my opinion on the matter is.

Buuuuuut, what are your guys' thoughts on Episode IX? (If it could be a spoiler free review, that would be amazing.  )

[The Shadow of Korriban]

Well, From what I've seen... It's trash.   It is an abomination that should be removed from this world.  Disney has no respect for George Lucas or Star Wars for that matter.  If I had three wishes, they would be:  (1) Remove Kathleen Kennedy from her throne.  (2) Imprison Rion Johnson and his friend J.J.  (3) Destroy Disney.   Do not bother yourself with watching such a nasty film, Sebias.

[Scott McLamok]

Reyan Johnson and Jar Jar Abrams made some trash movies! Buuut Disney is not all bad. They made Mandooo! And finished Clone Wars aaand hopefully the Bad Batch will be good!