I think it's interesting how in my day to day life with myself, my wife, family, friends and coworkers, the general consensus is that The Force Awakens was thoroughly enjoyable and the excitement for the next is palpably enthusiastic.... Then when I log into the internet it's all about how bad TFA was and how bad JJ is and how the next movie is going to be bad and how much more bad Episode 9 will be because the bad director will be back to make the bad things even worse than ever. Not scolding anyone here, I just find the difference between internet and reality pretty amusingly stark sometimes. Anyway, back to "PORGS: Jar Jar Bad or Worse?"
Not to me. The style of the entire thing feels more like a MCU movie (or NuTrek, unsurprisingly) than Star Wars--apart from the opening storm trooper attack scene, which felt like a trailer for a video game. Granted, I like the MCU movies, but they're definitely not Star Wars. Now, the marketing feels like Star Wars. The toys, the games, the slew of peripheral books and comics... but the movie itself, not so much. How do you think the cast interacted with Maz or the rathtars? Not because he was interacting with a placeholder, but because there were no other human actors there with him. I believe Mark Hamill said he could relate, having spent weeks filming on the Degobah set with only puppets. Lack of humans is lack of humans, whether their replacements are animated or practical.
1. You didn't answer the question. 2. The prequels weren't "constant CGI" any more than TFA was. They made extensive use of props, locations*, and miniatures, and TFA is on record as having more CGI shots than any one of the prequel films. So if anything "constant CGI" would be the latter. The difference is over a decade of experience and tech advancement at ILM, and that the prequels hyped their breakthrough CGI while TFA downplayed it. *The exception being Episode II, which didn't feature a lot of scenes where a practical set would be feasible. Even then, a big chunk of the film is spent on Tatooine or Naboo, both of which used real locations.
Yeah, I definitely recalled that while the prequels are being made and afterwards, the Star Wars franchise was going around just fine.
For me, as always when it comes to this debate, the argument isn't about the amount of CGI used; it's about HOW it was used. Bottom line is that the prequels used it horribly and made the movies look like fucking cartoons. And that has nothing to do with technological limitations vs. advancement - it has everything to do with Lucas wanting those movies to have colors so stupidly saturated that they no longer looked real. TFA, on the other hand, just like Jurassic Park, T2, etc. that came YEARS before the prequels, properly utilized it so things looked more organic and real world. No different than how Snyder's DC movies also look like shitty CGI cartoons or video games vs. the more muted and organic looking approach utilized by most of (but to be fair, not all) the MCU movies by comparison. It really comes down to the fact that some directors & design studios know how to use CGI, and some just don't. ILM clearly DO know how to properly use it, but Lucas just as clearly didn't, and his "direction" of how it was applied was every bit his fault just as much as how awful the stories, writing, dialogue and acting direction was with those embarrassments.
You've got that right for sure. Dude, I am so sorry... They didn't even need CGI to saturate the living hell out of The Force Awakens. I couldn't find a good shot of the scene where the X-wings make sort of a rainbow as they skim the water, but it's exactly the kind of thing you're decrying here. TFA may not have gone quite as far as the prequels, but it is a FAR cry from Jurassic Park and a long way from looking natural or realistic. ILM have said themselves that the key to TFA looking better than its predecessors is new compositing techniques. I'm pretty sure they would know.
Actually, no, a rainbow effect added to water mist is not exactly the kind of thing I'm decrying here at all. Nor is a visually brilliant palette. You can post TFA pics all the live long day citing a completely different context of what this conversation is about, but it doesn't change that any of them - even the ones you just posted - look like cartoons. I mean, I get it, you love the prequels and are going to almost absurd lengths to defend them, all fair enough, but it's evidently also completely skewing your objectiveness to how they look compared to anything that came before or after SW movie wise. Like or hate the prequels/sequels - but there is no debate in the undeniable tonal (read: visual) differences or how the CGI was applied.
But parts of TFA do look cartoonish (including the scene I'm talking about). And the movie is just as oversaturated in places. If there's no debate, it's because you haven't got an actual argument. You've basically just said "present all the factual evidence you want--I won't listen." Look, the prequels are flawed. I'm not going to defend them past what they deserve. But at least I can acknowledge the flaws that are there. Some folks, though, are so desperate for TFA to be better that they have to resort to double standards and deny what's right in front of them.
Wow, your defensive denial is confounding even by hardcore biased SW turbo-fan standards, so... sure, okay, I don't have an actual argument (that was already presented but you conveniently overlooked), and, yup, TFA looks just as ridiculously cartoonish and hilariously cheap as the prequels. They all match aesthetically and are indistinguishable from one other.
But you didn't present an argument. You presented an assertion with no support other than your own subjective impression. You told me what you feel, but you didn't explain why saturation would be the cause, nor did you provide any substantive response to several clearly oversaturated shots from TFA, other than to start attacking my personal character and assumed motives. You act as if your impression of things is a foregone conclusion and a universal experience. In essence "everyone knows what I'm talking about." But it isn't, and we don't. That's the point of presenting an actual argument. That assertion is also wrong. The most cartoonish scenes in the prequels mostly aren't the result of oversaturation. Here's why it can't be: The battle droids and the Gungans are the most frequently cartoonish characters in the trilogy, but they're also very drab, not saturated. If we agree that the those particular characters are cartoonish, then there must be some other explanation than oversaturation. I would suggest: unnatural movement, unnatural lighting, "waxy" textures and bump mapping. TFA has tons of oversaturation, but much less (not none) in the way of these issues. I would suggest this is the result of experience and better technology and ILM has said much the same. And for the record, I don't "love the prequels". I love one of the prequels (RotS). I enjoy about 3/4 of the prequels well enough (AotC is mixed) but not overly so. But I also find them unfairly and often irrationally maligned (and also not blinded by nostalgia to the flaws in the OT), and that pisses me off enough to say something.
Because you're harping on two particular parts where as it was much more noticeable in the Prequels. Anyhow, you're right, I'm wrong. Let's leave it at that so I don't end up getting a 100+ page rebuttal ala RLM.
Tell that crap to any actor who's ever performed on a stage. You don't need an actual place or a person when you are "ACTING." They've been doing just fine without real locations, props, or people since the time of the greeks.
I don't need to be "right". TFA and the PT are both flawed, and in mostly different ways, and whichever is best is subjective. And if people would pay attention, I'm not disagreeing with them 100%. But there are these narratives out there (they certainly weren't invented here) that are either way overstated, or full of holes and double-standards. For the sake of fairness, I'll point those out every single time. If TFA and the prequels share a common flaw, but TFA displays it less, I'll accept that--as is the case here. But the idea that it's only an issue in the prequels at all is BS.
A) I'd argue that stage acting requires a lot more talent than most film acting. B) They aren't adding characters in post-production either. I regularly attend a friend's productions, and so I watched plenty of stage acting. It's easy to assume the person is talking on a phone, etc. when you're filling in the blanks with your imagination, but when they add it in after the fact the CGI doesn't usually interact well if it isn't motion-captured. So you're arguing against something I never said? Well, okay.
