The Worst Possible Movie Thing Has Happened

**Janszoon** · 10-31-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=500&h=222

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 10-31-2012, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

All three prequels were a mix of actual sets and green screen.

The later two prequels relied mostly on blue screen sound stages, with locations composed primarily of CGI. A lot of Phantom Menace was shot on location on 35 mm film, which I feel makes it far more pleasing aesthetically than the other two.

Phantom isn't a good film by any stretch, but far better compared to what was to come. I didn't even feel like I was watching films with Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, they were like cut scenes from video games, or a web series LucasArts producers released on Xbox Live.

**Janszoon** · 10-31-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

The later two prequels relied mostly on blue screen sound stages, with locations composed primarily of CGI. A lot of Phantom Menace was shot on location on 35 mm film, which I feel makes it far more pleasing aesthetically than the other two.

I understand that's what you're saying but what I'm saying is that all three movies were a mixture of sets and green screens. The space stations, the scenes on Coruscant, the underwater scenes, final Darth Maul saber duel, etc. in Phantom Menace were not sets, they were computer created or computer enhanced, as was pod race and the battle at the end of the movie. I don't see how that makes it any different from the other two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

Phantom isn't a good film by any stretch, but far better compared to what was to come. I didn't even feel like I was watching films with Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, they were like cut scenes from video games, or a web series LucasArts producers released on Xbox Live.

Did you see them in the theater?

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 10-31-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I understand that's what you're saying but what I'm saying is that all three movies were a mixture of sets and green screens. The space stations, the scenes on Coruscant, the underwater scenes, final Darth Maul saber duel, etc. in Phantom Menace were not sets, they were computer created or computer enhanced, as was pod race and the battle at the end of the movie. I don't see how that makes it any different from the other two.

I know there were a lot of computer generated scenes in Phantom, but just look at the scenes on Tatooine and compare them to A New Hope, the shot composition is more consistent, film grain is present, and elaborate sets constructed. Yes, it was all augmented by CGI and yes there were sets entirely composed of CGI, but it was far more restrained than the other two films, which now look completely dated only a few years removed.

Just look how digital and inconsistent with the original films the aesthetic devolves into by Revenge of the Sith.

A New Hope:

Phantom Menace:

Revenge of the Sith:

Maybe my problem isn't as much with where they chose to shoot on sets vs. CGI soundstages, and more with the cheesy digital camera feel the prequel trilogy acquired. It got worse in Attack of the Clones and looks flat out horrible in Revenge.

As far as I'm concerned, these three films contain equally bad writing, directing, and acting. My opinion is basically only influenced by the look and feel of the film itself.

Quote:

Did you see them in the theater?

All three. I was a wee lad when Phantom came out but by Attack was already disappointed. I grew up watching the originals on VHS.

**Janszoon** · 10-31-2012, 01:58 PM

I agree it doesn't look great in the stills you picked of II and III but its hardly something that ruins the movie for me. If it were, I wouldn't have ever been able to get past the dated film compositing of the original trilogy. Maybe you've never seen the first three movies in their original form, with the cutout boxes around the TIE fighters, the orange blob under Luke's landspeeder, the horribly composited rancor, etc., but the Star Wars movies have always had their questionable shots. It's not something that was new to the prequels.

Also, I'm pretty sure that still you have from the first movie is from one of the many recolored and retouched versions of the film rather than the original, which was not nearly as color rich.

FRED HALE SR. · 10-31-2012, 02:49 PM

hump-dar-10 : theCHIVE

Disney is already making improvements on The Empire Strikes back. Bravo.

duga · 10-31-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I agree it doesn't look great in the stills you picked of II and III but its hardly something that ruins the movie for me. If it were, I wouldn't have ever been able to get past the dated film compositing of the original trilogy. Maybe you've never seen the first three movies in their original form, with the cutout boxes around the TIE fighters, the orange blob under Luke's landspeeder, the horribly composited rancor, etc., but the Star Wars movies have always had their questionable shots. It's not something that was new to the prequels.

Also, I'm pretty sure that still you have from the first movie is from one of the many recolored and retouched versions of the film rather than the original, which was not nearly as color rich.

I'm going to agree with Conan on this one. At least The Phantom Menace attempted to keep a consistent feel with the original trilogy. II and III just felt like "look at this EYYE CANNDYYY". Maybe that would have been ok also if it weren't for Hayden Christenson. Every time I see the new ones I think "ok...maybe I was hard on it last time. Maybe his acting isn't so bad." No. It's worse every time. He does have a pretty mean looking stare, though. Redeeming qualities about the original trilogy: Liam Neeson as a Jedi, Ewan McGregor playing Obi Wan (he was born to play a young Obi Wan), and a Yoda lightsaber battle. Things I really can't get over: Anakin's transition to the dark side and Padme losing the will to live. JESUS woman, you just had kids! Both of those things could have been avoided with half decent writing.

As for George messing with the originals...I actually don't mind it. I just wish he was consistent. Why would Hayden pop up all young and then Obi Wan is still old? I'd be pissed.

Ok, that being said...this Disney thing could be good or bad. They might make better movies (in which case, cool...more Star Wars). Or they might make it horrible, which would be even worse than the prequels. With the prequels, the original trilogy couldn't really be screwed up. We knew the prequel story, only now we just saw how it went down. If it was good or bad, it didn't really matter. It all led up to the same thing. With new movies, though, now they have the potential to completely **** with a story that I think ended great.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 10-31-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I agree it doesn't look great in the stills you picked of II and III but its hardly something that ruins the movie for me. If it were, I wouldn't have ever been able to get past the dated film compositing of the original trilogy. Maybe you've never seen the first three movies in their original form, with the cutout boxes around the TIE fighters, the orange blob under Luke's landspeeder, the horribly composited rancor, etc., but the Star Wars movies have always had their questionable shots. It's not something that was new to the prequels.

Also, I'm pretty sure that still you have from the first movie is from one of the many recolored and retouched versions of the film rather than the original, which was not nearly as color rich.

I had, and it was never something I minded. There's a difference between some dated special effects shots and the composition of the entire film. A New Hope was very low budget, so going back and recoloring/updating some of the SFX sequences and film coloring doesn't bother me at all. I don't mind updating the older films, necessarily. I would definitely take issue with them changing the tone completely, but even if they did I'd want them to make sure the feel of all 6 films remained consistent with each other, as I'd like them to view like films in the same series. I prefer the style of the original trilogy (the original low budget look of the first run of A New Hope notwithstanding), as it's far more grounded in practical special effects and of course the beautiful 35 mm standard of the time.

**Janszoon** · 10-31-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

I'm going to agree with Conan on this one. At least The Phantom Menace attempted to keep a consistent feel with the original trilogy. II and III just felt like "look at this EYYE CANNDYYY". Maybe that would have been ok also if it weren't for Hayden Christenson. Every time I see the new ones I think "ok...maybe I was hard on it last time. Maybe his acting isn't so bad." No. It's worse every time. He does have a pretty mean looking stare, though. Redeeming qualities about the original trilogy: Liam Neeson as a Jedi, Ewan McGregor playing Obi Wan (he was born to play a young Obi Wan), and a Yoda lightsaber battle. Things I really can't get over: Anakin's transition to the dark side and Padme losing the will to live. JESUS woman, you just had kids! Both of those things could have been avoided with half decent writing.

I thought Revenge of the Sith was the most like the original trilogy, and the most like the kind of prequel I had always wanted to see since first hearing rumors about them as a kid in the 80s. To me Phantom Menace felt the least consistent with the originals

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

As for George messing with the originals...I actually don't mind it. I just wish he was consistent. Why would Hayden pop up all young and then Obi Wan is still old? I'd be pissed.

Ok, that being said...this Disney thing could be good or bad. They might make better movies (in which case, cool...more Star Wars). Or they might make it horrible, which would be even worse than the prequels. With the prequels, the original trilogy couldn't really be screwed up. We knew the prequel story, only now we just saw how it went down. If it was good or bad, it didn't really matter. It all led up to the same thing. With new movies, though, now they have the potential to completely **** with a story that I think ended great.

I definitely agree with the bolded.

duga · 10-31-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I thought Revenge of the Sith was the most like the original trilogy, and the most like the kind of prequel I had always wanted to see since first hearing rumors about them as a kid in the 80s. To me Phantom Menace felt the least consistent with the originals

When it first came out I thought it was the best of the prequels. The more I've seen it and the longer I've had to digest the whole thing, the more I think it is the worst one. Seriously, this was THE movie that led to the classics. If there was ever a moment to do it right, it was this one. The pacing was wrong, his transition to the dark side was not believable (damn, I overreacted and killed this dude...I guess I'm just evil now...yessss masterrr), and I just wanted to punch the emperor in the face (maybe that was the point...but in the others, I thought he was a pretty badass villain). Those things are still forgivable...they still don't compare to the Padme thing I mentioned. Seriously, how do you justify that? Did George just get bored and slapped an ending on there? It really pisses me off every time I see it...and I don't just get pissed off at movies.

10-31-2012, 01:58 PM	#45 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	I agree it doesn't look great in the stills you picked of II and III but its hardly something that ruins the movie for me. If it were, I wouldn't have ever been able to get past the dated film compositing of the original trilogy. Maybe you've never seen the first three movies in their original form, with the cutout boxes around the TIE fighters, the orange blob under Luke's landspeeder, the horribly composited rancor, etc., but the Star Wars movies have always had their questionable shots. It's not something that was new to the prequels. Also, I'm pretty sure that still you have from the first movie is from one of the many recolored and retouched versions of the film rather than the original, which was not nearly as color rich. __________________ A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man Time & Place 25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die last.fm

10-31-2012, 02:49 PM	#46 (permalink)
FRED HALE SR. Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: So-Cal Posts: 3,752	hump-dar-10 : theCHIVE Disney is already making improvements on The Empire Strikes back. Bravo.