"Revenge of the Sith" & Atomfilms link pg2 - Beyond Tiki

D DaneTiki Member Minneapolis, MN Joined: May 29, 2002 Posts: 113	D DaneTiki Posted posted on Tue, Jul 27, 2004 11:47 AM First off, there's no arguing about it, Empire Strikes Back was the best of the lot. Regarding CGI: While I agree that Episodes I & II were not as spiffy as they could have been due to cheezy CGI, I think people are being a little too hard on the technique. Go back and rent a few movies with pre-CGI special effects. "Ghost" for example looks laughable today. It looks like the ghosts were drawn on the film stock with a Magic Marker. By a three-year-old. Similarly, virtually every monster movie made before CGI requires a MASSIVE suspension of disbelief for the viewer to forget that it's just a guy in a rubber suit. (An obvious exception would be "Alien," which is scarily "realistic.") I liked the models in Episodes IV-VI better too, but models impose a lot of annoying limits. For instance, it's really hard to simulate fire and water at fine scales. I think the scene in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where the Luftwaffe plane explodes through the tunnel was done with 1/6 scale models. At that ratio, you might as well just do it full size. Expensive. I thought the CGI in "I, Robot" was pretty darn good. On the otherhand, it was laughably fakey in "Catwoman." I suppose a great deal depends on the talent of the programmers and renderers, the vision/restraint of the director and the appropriateness of the story for CGI enhancement. Regarding "Revenge of the Sith": This had goddamn well better be a really, really dark film. Lucas was trying to deflect criticism about the last one (all well-deserved) by saying that I & II were for kids and III would be really disturbing. If it's not, and especially if I have to endure another EYE-GOUGINGLY AWFUL Hayden Christensen-Natalie Portman "love" scene, there will be problems. And a bad review.

First off, there's no arguing about it, Empire Strikes Back was the best of the lot.

Regarding CGI: While I agree that Episodes I & II were not as spiffy as they could have been due to cheezy CGI, I think people are being a little too hard on the technique. Go back and rent a few movies with pre-CGI special effects. "Ghost" for example looks laughable today. It looks like the ghosts were drawn on the film stock with a Magic Marker. By a three-year-old. Similarly, virtually every monster movie made before CGI requires a MASSIVE suspension of disbelief for the viewer to forget that it's just a guy in a rubber suit. (An obvious exception would be "Alien," which is scarily "realistic.") I liked the models in Episodes IV-VI better too, but models impose a lot of annoying limits. For instance, it's really hard to simulate fire and water at fine scales. I think the scene in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" where the Luftwaffe plane explodes through the tunnel was done with 1/6 scale models. At that ratio, you might as well just do it full size. Expensive.

I thought the CGI in "I, Robot" was pretty darn good. On the otherhand, it was laughably fakey in "Catwoman." I suppose a great deal depends on the talent of the programmers and renderers, the vision/restraint of the director and the appropriateness of the story for CGI enhancement.

Regarding "Revenge of the Sith": This had goddamn well better be a really, really dark film. Lucas was trying to deflect criticism about the last one (all well-deserved) by saying that I & II were for kids and III would be really disturbing. If it's not, and especially if I have to endure another EYE-GOUGINGLY AWFUL Hayden Christensen-Natalie Portman "love" scene, there will be problems. And a bad review.

Post #104460 by DaneTiki on Tue, Jul 27, 2004 11:47 AM