Practical Prequels - Proof The Star Wars Prequels Were More Than CGI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- "A return to practical effects" is a phrase I've heard numerous times in the lead up to The Force Awakens. I wanted to show that the prequels were not all CGI. Hundreds of miniatures, sets and props were made just for one of the prequels alone. One Prequel had more practical effects than all three of the original trilogy. Here's a collection of photos just showing some of the practical effects used in the prequels.
For all the latest on Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and John Williams visit www.thebeardedtrio.com
The downvotes are from angry 40 year old men who are super pissed they spent 16 years inventing an argument that isn't supported by the facts.
You hated the prequels for different reasons that, perhaps, you can't entirely pinpoint. JUST ADMIT IT AND MOVE ON!
*****
I'm not sure your choice of pejoratives has me wanting you on my side, bro.
+andy wylde after the force awakens comes out,they'll be hating on that too. It'll be harder to jack off to an older han and no leia in bikini blah blah blah they'll ifnd reasons to hate,and if they don't see one they'll make shit up like they did with the prequel's acting being apparently like Kristen stewarts -_-
+andy wylde I'm only 20 and i hate the prequels cause they are genuinely bad movies, not nostalgia bias at all idiot
+Michael McGrath K
+GeekFurious And many of them will argue relentlessly that there were no episode numbers on any of the OT movies - indicating they have never watched or pay attention to the movies they claim to love so much. It's embarrassing nonsense.
I did know that the prequels didn't use as much CGI as everyone goes on about but this video makes me respect the prequel films more.
+Gizmo Sloth PT The Practical Trilogy. The new ST is the Synthetic Trilogy.
LMFAO, this video proves almost nothing. This video covers the practical effects in the prequels which were basically about 20%, most of the effects in the prequels were still cgi
+Michael McGrath other way around it was more like 80, 20 practical over CGI.
+Michael McGrath You base this all on what?
Nothing, just shut your mouth.
+MrPete8680 Keep telling yourself than you butthurt prequel fanboy. Keep telling yourself that
what annoys me is when people make their reviews of the prequels and say that there is too much cgi. In Chris Stuckmann's Phantom menace review he talks about how the the originals looked better because they used real, tangible models even though the phantom menace used more practical effects than in the entire original trilogy. In his attack of the clones review he was talking about how Lucas used the same technique he used in phantom menace to give us information in boring blue screen rooms and the second scene he showed that he said was shot on a blue screen was actually shot on a practical set.
People don't do their research or cite their sources these days and people believe them. You can take a completely out of context clip and narrate over most of it about "what happened" and people will believe you because they think you're funny.
The Force Awakens had more VFX shots than The Phantom Menace.
I find that hilarious.
How do you know this?
Daniel Cieśłar When I find the link I'll post it but there was a website that listed the number of shots that utilized CGI and the Force Awakens was nearly at the top, along with the other Star Wars films. I think it has the most CGI of any Star Wars film thus far.
ReuWil I know, hypocrites at work. They are just regurgitating talking points they heard elsewhere. No original thoughts or imagination.
Laced Mindu Are you describing the filmmakers too? EP7 was pretty unoriginal. Either taken from the OT or old EU.
Also, the so called "bad CGI" in the prequels were mostly practical effects and sets.
I prefer George's prequels to jar jar's tfa garbage.
all of them do
TFA wasn’t bad, TLJ and TROS were shit.
@@fisher3317 TFA was only a remake, for example: Droid who carried important info, evil guy in mask, attack of forces of evil, massive weapon, etc. It's totally remake of the New Hope
WOLF So, it was still decent. Something doesn’t have to be original for it to be good.
Amen
4:27 George Lucas was NOT CGI in the prequels. He was a real person, making him a practical effect.
The reason they don’t look so hot is because Lucas shot the last 2 on video. This was a very experimental thing to do, but Lucas did it and essentially pioneered digital film making. It’s awesome how he tried new things to break the mold, just like the originals. It’s a shame people can’t see that. I love the original saga 1-6 and I always will
Where the hell did people get this "prequels were 100% greenscreened" shit anyway from?
RLM and their acolytes.
Watch the fucking movies
+Michael McGrath keep believing Plinkett's BS
+startmirca To be honest, the original trilogy used TONS of blue screen as well, so it's just hypocritical to shame the prequels for doing the same thing.
+startmirca there was a confirmed rumor that only tattooine and some parts of Naboo were only real. so people assumed that it was CGI rather than set stages. the naboo countryside where the gungans fight the droids are actually CGI landscapes as well as the country side right out side the naboo hangar. everything else is made by miniatures and sets. people couldn't get past it and though it was just CGI. I always thought all of it was real as a kid except, the only thing that jarred me was the countryside right out side the hangar.
60 people are haters that can't handle the truth, one of them is JJ Abrams
Salad Dispenser Abrams should love it. Thanks to the prequels he finally has a name Jar Jar 😉
23 trolls came crawling out of their caves only to vomit hatred that they built up inside them over the past 16 years. Passionately hating something for that long has got to be detrimental to a person's health.
+StarmanSkywalker the last film was may 2005....it's November 2015......people need to let that shit go already. if the prequels suck don't go to a prequel video twice a day for over a decade to bash it. They never have any points other then cgi,jar jar and imaginary bad acting.
+God of Nintendo the bad acting is genuine, especially the awful hayden christensen
+Michael McGrath I've never seen prequel hate until I went to the internet. The PT was actually the reason why me and a lot of my friends became Star Wars fan boys and started to read shit ton of EU. It is just hated because a majority of Star Wars fans are just salty old people. And now even TFA is being ridiculed
This video proves nothing. The prequels still had too much cgi
The bad acting was not imaginary. It was absolutely genuine
YEP I KNEW IT . THERE WERE PRACTICAL EFFECTS IN THE PREQUELS,
THATS GREAT I ALWAYS LOVE ALL THE STAR WARS MOVIES.
HELL YEAH! AGREE 100% HAVE A BEER ON ME!
Yes all 6 are very good
The 6 and only 6 Star Wars films that have been produced are very good
The perfect 6-part saga
And DICE said there weren't any models from the Prequels.
It still irritates me that people still believe that the Prequels were all CGI when in Reality they weren't.
because they repeat something they heard to bash on something they, personally, don't like. And it's not over till it's topped of with an insult.
I find it so funny that more OT "Purists" hate the PT more then the OT because they think it was 99% CGI and/or green screen instead of more valid points like the direction, acting or cast.
The only movie with just terrible effects would be AOTC, it's a mess, Apparently ILM thought they can make a bigger mess in the movie than the plot could.
how does one critique what's not there ;)
+Static Film Productions but it was there.
"special fx without a story is a pretty boring thing" - George Lucas pre 90's
No. I just dislike the prequels because they're okay at best.
After the whole divisive controversy surrounding the Sequel Trilogy, I'm hoping it will help more and more people to appreciate the prequels more. And with these videos it will help a lot.
Exactly. And that apart from that, the CGI in these films, more than something negative, is something to admire.
What a glorious video!
Great video! Shame this video had to be done as a response to some knuckleheads who can't help their whining. Prequel trilogy are wonderful movies!
I think the prequels were far more engaging and intriguing than the original trilogy. I love the originals, but there is so much more to discuss with the prequels. How does Palpatine manage to create a war in which both sides genuinely believe they are right and can win? What influences someone to turn against the only institution that they know (Anakin's turn is far more fleshed out than Finn's sudden and inexplicable betrayal of the first order). How can one person take control of such a diverse galaxy? My point is, if you do more than casually view the movie and move beyond nostalgic expectations of what you think the movie should be based on the originals, then you will find so many interesting things in the prequels. And besides, if the prequels were just like the originals, then what would their point be? Star Wars is not a formula in which the same story and the same characters need to always be there. It is an evolving process, much like life.
Also, Anakin is supposed to be awkward. How weird would it be if a guy who has grown up in the Jedi temple for most of his life, a place in which relationships are strictly forbidden, was skilled at communicating his love for Padme? That just wouldn't make sense. He must be incredibly nervous, not to mention extremely inexperienced. It would be unrealistic otherwise. Typical of so many other male protagonists in movies, yes, but boring.
I concur.
Prequels had something the Sequels didn't - passion, good world building, and a plan.
Awesome video! I never understood the cgi argument.
+Chase Hildenbrand I can explain some of it, the value of CG depreciates with time, but a well built model will always be as good or bad as the day it was crafted.
+Metaphysicist I don't know, a lot of the stuff in the originals looks quite bad. I suppose fake practical effects look more charming than old CGI.
Gabriel Rangel To some they do, its also matter of imprinting.
+Chase Hildenbrand Because actors need to be able to connect to their environment to be able to relay proper emotions and expressions. Not to mention being able to walk around.
+Chase Hildenbrand There's still way more than in the original trilogy
I already knew a lot of the effects in the prequels were full sized sets and models mixed with CGI effects. But it's still awesome to see more behind the scenes photos of the prequels and discover what else were practical effects. And I was only watching all 3 prequels just yesterday and enjoyed them.
PT the Pratical Trilogy. ST is the Synthesized Trilogy
Star wars is my favorite franchise/fictional universe.
Pre Disney mind you, but I do like Rebels and parts of the two fan fiction films(TFA and R1).
But I founnd it really hard to enjoy since people started bitching about George Lucas and the Special Editions.
And I was born in the 80's and had only seen the OT on tv or rented. And I collected the 1995 figures and read the EU Novels.
So I loved the Special Editions when they came out and we saw them in theaters.
I love that Lucas made Han less of a DOUCHEBAG by making him honorable enough and badass enough to let you make the first move. Han isn't a "cold blooded killer". He's a swarthy smuggler who falls for the princess.
And he still killed Stormtroopers that he didn't have to kill.
And Jabba was still cool in ANH. The extra wampa footage in ESB. The extra scene with Ooo la la, I mean Oola.
And the Prequels were George Lucas just pissing excellence all over the screen and people bitched about that.
I was a teen when TPM came out, and I "hated" Jar Jar. But it was the same feeling of when C-3PO interrupted Han and Leia kissing. Jar Jar! You're cock blocking bruh! Go bother Obi wan! (That would be hilarious!)
The people who bitched about the prequels and special editions are people who have crushes on Han Solo. They even want to be him. They're mad that he's not in the prequels.
I fucking guarantee, that if Han Solo was in TPM as a freaking cameo, the Lucas haters would have never came into existence.
I mean the ones that aren't apart of the Hollywood system, and are jealous of the dude, so they created this whole smear campaign orchestrated against Lucas.
Fuck all the posers saying they're "fans" of Star wars. If you hate one Lucas or his Star wars art, you are not a Star wars fan.
Signed, everyone who actually APPRECIATES GEORGE LUCAS FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY.
where's yours bitches? :{
Lucas also approved the EU materials, including the Shadows of the Empire, KOTOR video games and the old Battlefront, which are still decent video games in spite of age.
tetsuoswrath the prequels are poop what are you talking about
44 people who disliked this are people in denial and they want to hate on the prequels ignoring any facts!
Look at the evidence folks! Practical effects were used in the PT trilogy!
Yeah, but nowhere near as much as the original trilogy. The prequels still had way too much cgi
+Michael McGrath You act like that's a bad thing though.
+Michael McGrath The originals used a shitload of blue screen as well.
@@MichaelM28 The phantom menace used more practical effects than the entire original trilogy. Here is my source: www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-The-Phantom-Menace-used-more-practical-effects-than-all-the-other-Star-Wars-films and look at the first answer, by someone who studies cinema arts and history.
Even if the prequels did use as much CGI as all the haters made it out to be, why is that necessarily a bad thing? There's such a huge stigma toward CGI in general because it's 'not really there' or 'it's made through a computer so there's no effort put into it'. There's more effort put into creating CGI than people give credit for and it's kind of disrespectful to the fx artists who made them. If there really is no effort put into it, then maybe someone like me who knows little about computers can do it no problem. You also hear people who talk about practical effects that are terrible and say something like 'at least, it's real and not all fake and CGI'. So, if something was amazingly realised through CGI and looked authentic enough , you would still dismiss it for the simple fact that it's CG and 'not there'. That's why I find the whole practical > CG argument weak. It just comes off as a bunch of 40 year olds who grew up in the 80s who turn into grumpy old geezers whenever a film has CGI in it and go on about the good ol' days when everything was practical. I don't want to judge a film based on how it uses effects. As long as the effects are good and the overall film is good, that's all that matters. For me personally, I like the prequels and the effects were great. Even today, they hold up well.
+Magnus Grant Agree!
Because of that last line your opinion is no longer valid
Because I liked the effects in the prequels? ....Okay then
+Magnus Grant Word!
I think people dislike cgi because it is sometimes really bad and it annoys you just looking at it. If the cgi is good you won't even notice it's fake.
Great video!
Bravo!!! Long live the prequels!!!!
I now really hope that out there somewhere are some of these miniatures still intact.
It just all looked cgi. This is not a value judgement about the merits of CGI as such. Perhaps it all looked computer generated because the newer more shiny look to ships and buildings in the Prequels as opposed to the worn out look in the Originals. They both had a different look. CGI renders tend to look 'more realistic' when they are aged and surface damaged--Substance Painter, Z-Brush, 3dCoat etc all help with this.
Apologize to George Lucas.
George Lucas es un super genio, con esta video vuelvo a restaurar mi fe en las secuelas y yo que creia que era puro cgi. Gracias George.
Me: shows this video to a hater
Hater: ... uh... it still looks fake, so F off!
Me: Bruh
Case in point: @obviouslycookies7469
While creating the prequels, George Lucas along with his company ILM had to literally invent new technology and CGI methods that had not been invented yet in order to create visual effects for the films that were previously unable to be digitally created. People had not previously seen effects of this sort in other films. He probably wanted to show how he created these effects. He probably thought people already knew he would be using a lot of practical effects as well. This is just what I think.
A lot of this photos are from reference models that never made it to the screen. They did a lot of them.
+Carlos Antonio Páez Cuba
Actually, exactly ONE image shows a proof-of-concept reference model. It's the small scale-Mustafar mountain scape. Everything but that single one was shot for the film.
If I'm worng, and I'm not saying I'm not, then the remarkable thing is how they made all those models look so fake!
HAHAHAHAH c'mon dude, I don't know how an alien world looks like, but GEORGE LUCAS doesn't know either. He and I we both know how flesh move, how flesh reacts to light, how metals reflect light, and for all those cgi is crap. Of course there were practical stuff in the prequels, it was made in 1999 after all, and the first one... it's the best one. Let that sink in. The second one that he shot in 2K RESOLUTION with, back then, totally new digital cameras looks absolutely awful today.
And the argument that there was practical stuff in the prequels, you can make it, there was, but there were gigantic things like a completely new character done in cgi, that stands out and looks crappy as fuck.
Also, none of this matters. If the history was good and the characters were compelling nobody would be complaining about cgi. Story is king and these movies were just god awful, he couldn't even get the basics of storytelling and modern filmaking right.
+Agent of Chaos Lucas didn't sacrifice anything. You have to remember that he was working with a different team for the prequels.
Agent of Chaos Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that's what they were?
I still think that making some characters 100% CGI was a mistake.
But the miniatures are absolutely beautiful.
In some cases it had to be done. Yoda fighting would have been pretty much impossible to do without CGI.
Only choice that was somewhat stupid was to make all the clone troopers CGI. Understandable in a big battle but when its just couple people talking, no.
RevanBladeZ well, they're all clones so they've gotta have the same height and weight and everything
Good point.
RevanBladeZ Remember though, they are Clones. It's not like George could find thousands of the same person, with the same height and the same particular voice and body. I didn't agree with it either at the time, but then I had second thoughts.
@@snakeboy1912 But they could use the technique that they used in Back to the Future 2 where they had the actor on one side of the frame for one take and then for the next take the same actor would be on the other side of the frame and then they would combine the two takes.
I don't like the prequels NOT because of CGI use, but it's actual lack of good story telling. I don't get why you can hate a movie just for using CGI.
The effects were better than the script IMO.
+Matthew Pierson Wait as compared to Force Awakens which was a lazy unoriginal remake of New Hope passed off as a sequel? And yes, do prove me wrong.
Lack of good storytelling?
What makes you think that? I'd like to know.
Matthew Pierson it was great storytelling compared to the sequels
The prequels were trying to tell you the story about how did this evil galactic empire came to be. George Lucas was pretty much telling us that things didn’t used to be this way, that there was a Republic a democratic government that protected its citizens and gave them rights and how that government was tore down and how Palpatine came into power. If you don’t get what the prequels were trying to tell you about the Original Trilogy then you also missed out on what makes the Original Trilogy great. It’s about a Rebellion trying to overthrow the empire and bring back the republic and democracy back to the galaxy. Star Wars is a space opera with politics and that holds true for both the PT & OT. TFA & LJ are both Disney garbage. Both movies are decent movies, however both movies failed at being Star Wars movies.
1. Lack of romance
2. Lack of politics
The PT is more like the OT than this Disney sequel will ever be.
I always thought the prequels cgi was never an issue, people just love to bitch like my friend, it comes down to characters n plot which prequels had some great ups n downs, it was just inconsistent until episode 3 where everything felt just right.
watch darth plagueis story scene, n tell me that wasn't the most brilliant scene George has ever written. a plot twist can be done by any jackass willing to piss off a few fans but a true character scene like that with acting chops of Ian mcdiarmid is just breathtaking. at the time, George was still innovating with what he can do with cgi, people rarely complained that much about revenge of the sith until many years later with the rise of edgy hipster bitches n obnoxious tweens, just hating on everything to conform with growing trends n memes. prequels were good by themselves, they made my childhood great.
also, when I watched last jedi in theaters.... nobody cheered or even clapped by the film's end compared to revenge of the sith, goes to show just bringing back luke skywalker n leia as glorified extras in last jedi wasnt enough.
Don't forget those same edgy hipster bitches n obnoxious tweens use Mr Plinket as a source to justify their hatred for the prequels.
"We go back to practical effets" is just another way to say " you will not have the feeling of a blue screen in every single shot".
It's not important to know that there is 50% of good flour in a bread, if the other 50% are indigestibles chemicals...because will remain only the disease caused by the bad food.
If another baker says :" Come in my shop, no chemicals in my bread !" will you answer him : " you hater !! there was also good flour in the previous bread !!" ?
The question is not : is there practical effects in the PT ? , the question is : are they well used ? does it look good ? does it look real ? are the blue screen and CGI overused ?...it's only a matter of general feeling...and unfortunatly, this video will not make AOTC look better.
+Head Shot Good thing they were used incredibly well. AotC is beautiful.
+Agahnim Veneficus Attack of the clones is a horrible looking movie with poor video game graphics
***** No it doesn't. Force awakens is amazing, and unlike attack of the cgi, it's made with mostly real sets, props and characters, something the prequels could never pull off
Michael McGrath
Um....
imgur.com/a/iTTu7
imgur.com/a/wVa9R
imgur.com/a/siERK
For your sake, look through all of those images. Educate yourself.
+Agahnim Veneficus Thanks for the links, all those wonderful images in one place! :D
What’s with the dislikes?
Disney Shills and Original Trilogy Fanboys denying the fact there was actual effort in the pequels..
The preqeuls had ( story, new ships and aliens, creativity ) , 7 was not realy bad but recycled, 8 went downhill, and I lost interest, never seen 9.
All the damn practicals are from episode 1...
+Mikael R. No.
Agahnim Veneficus Sorry. I was generalising. But ep 1 had the biggest amount of practicals and it's pretty crazy.
Mikael R.
No, I'm sorry. I was a bit curt there. I'm just so used to people coming in to trash things without much thought and then running away. :P
I've heard that they built more and more models and sets for each movie as the prequels went on. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith don't look different because they had less practical effects (they had more); they look different because they were shot with digital cameras while The Phantom menace was shot on film, along with the original trilogy films and The Force Awakens.
Agahnim Veneficus I understand. There were a lot of practical in ep 2 and 3. It's just that there was less of that good blend of cg and practical that was present in ep 1.
Respect to the modelbuilders, reminds me of how they did it in LoTR. But it's not the effects that's the problem with the movies..
G.L fucked up the script and that's the dealbreaker, among with bad acting (Maybe bad motiation from G.L).
Great CGI/Practical effects dosn't work without a great script, it just becomes an empty shell in a lifeless world.
The script is the best thing in the Prequel (with costumes and different civilisations). Better than destroying again and again a Death Star.
@@darthtleilaxu4021 I would say the script is badly written mostly the dialogue but the whole world building and lore is great
Get out of here the script and acting is amazing
I don't hate the prequels because of visual effects necessarily, but I hate them because of the boring characters and vague plot. Not to mention incredibly boring camera work.
Vague plot. Yeah: better is destroying a Death Star in IV. And again in VI. The fall of a republic is far more insteresting.
Expository dialogue is plentiful in the original. Not showing Luke flying the T-16 on Tattooine is a sad flaw and shortcoming of A New Hope, etc.
Nice still dose not help the films out though.
Indeed.
Leafy IsNotHere they are much better than the sequels
What even are half of these? I don't recognize a lot of them.
This is very weird to watch, some seem really pointless (like the diner and the massive power couplings).
I think the natural rock sets are the best ones, that you don't even think of when you look at them. I think some other stuff is also surprising because it still kinda looks like it could be CGI :P
Are you blind or something? Most of the practical sets and models shown here are seen all over the prequels.
How come the Originals hold up after 30+ years and the prequels have aged terribly in only 10 years?
Leafy IsNotHere If the Originals can you hold up for 30 years, then I'm pretty sure the Prequels with the extra tools that George Lucas took advantage of, can you do the same thing.
Leafy IsNotHere The original trilogy doesn’t hold up. It just doesn’t. Revenge of the Sith does
episode 2 was over 90% cgi according to lucas
but the cgi at its time is really impressive
Source?
This were just real models used to create the CGI models, the real models were not acutually used in footage or filmed.
Hugo They were overlaid with CGI, but a lot of the miniature sets and practical effects were used in the film
This is a completely blatant lie
why would they build real miniatures if they can make the same thing in the computer, and why would they make a CGI model if they had a miniature. see you're argument doesn't make any sense
I never thought the visual effects were bad In the prequels my main beef with the PT is that it contradicts the Originals it has more plot holes then swiss cheese.
What kind of contradictions?
Yeah what contradictions?
“I dont seem to remember owning any droids”
“Do you remember your mother, your real mother?” “Yes” WTF
Not only that, the plot of the prequels relies on everybody being an actual idiot. They are consistant stories, as everybody who loves them will tell you, but they are consistant in how terrible they are
@@TheSEAempire Yes, the same way he spoke about Anakin and Vader. Both of those droids were never his. They were in the hands of Anakin and Padme. Exchanged.
Leia was known as growing up with foster parents. Whereas Luke refered to his caretakers as Aunt and Uncle. Leia can have memories of a mother, her mother... her step mother. Leia can misremember. Characters work only under knowledge they posses.
The plot is quite coherent. The actions are logical and made by real life people.
You may want to give examples. Take the criticism against the chain of responsability in the second movie. Any person who has basic knowledge of politicians, leaders or criminals will tell you that no one gets their hands dirty. They use patsies or underlings. Why? So you don't get caught, are free to do other things and do bigger things.
This video still doesn't argue the fact that almost all of the aliens in the prequels were CGI. Explain that
So what ? Better are plastic aliens in the cantina in the fourth episode ? Come on...
NO. NOT better than people in suits in A New Hope
Most of the aliens in the Prequels were either costumes, or animatronics not every single aliens was green screened bud. Not even the majority of it. Did you really watch the full video?
Master Yarael Poof would like a word with you. He says that he "Wants stab his lightsaber through your hands, then tear your OT-fanboying head off your shoulders, then finally throw you out the window into the streets of Corouscant, never to be found.", or something like that.
No offense but this video is terribly made.. should have just uploaded all the pictures to a single location and linked them here instead of zooming in on already horribly pixelated pictures that are full of compression artifacts.
Anyway it's now obvious that the force awakens wasn't really a "return to practical effects".. if anything it used *less* practical effects than the PT.. not that I mind, I'm not like those idiotic bigots who have to badmouth a creative work because of irrelevant details.
Who cares. The prequels still sucked: Bad stories, bad acting, unlikeable and flat characters
Michael McGrath Can you give me an example?
the only thing i hate is the horrible love story between padme and skywalker, but thats it, i really like the prequels, clones gave me an orgasm when i was in the cinema
*Drives safari truck full of fellow clones in it over*
"And here we see the narrow minded OT purist who hates every one of us. It is very hostile, and it is impossible to reason with. You are permitted to throw stones, sticks, beverages, dynamite, and other dangerous objects."
Ok boomer
It doesn't matter if it still looks fake as fuck
Still less practical than the Original Trilogy. FACT
someone is still in denial
At least there are ACTUAL practical effects, unlike that new Jungle Book movie, idiot.
phantom menace alone had more set and practical effects then the enitre OT.
yeah they used more cgi but they also had more practical effects in the pt
boards.theforce.net/threads/practical-effects-in-the-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/
NOPE!
This still doesn't change how bad the prequels are
I prefer the prequels. And I am an old fan.
^ Then when were you born bruh?
Everyday Films Can YOU elaborate on why the prequels are "bad"?
Leafy IsNotHere better than Disney crap
Most of these are from Episode 1 not the whole trilogy.
+Curtis Dunn That's not true. There are a ton of shots here from the other two films, especially Episode II. AOTC always gets flak for being the "fake-looking" one, when in actuality, ROTS has far more matte paintings and CG environments.
Apparently, each prequel film used more practical effects, sets, locations, models, etc, than all three original trilogy movies combined. Also, both Attack of the Clones(2002) and Revenge of the Sith(2005) were nominated for "Outstanding Models and Miniatures in a Motion Picture" award by the Visual Effects Society in 2002 and 2005 respectively.
There’s still too much CGI
Still more cgi and green-screens
+Michael McGrath Yeah, and?
+Michael McGrath The originals also used a loooot of bluescreen. Not that much less than the prequels.
+Particular Particle but the originals were still more practical. no cgi creatures or props
Biggest bullshit ever
Michael McGrath idiot
Well here's the thing.. I know a bunch of practical effects were used. And i also know a bunch of beautiful miniatures were made. But heres the question: where are they in the film ?! All we see in the film is just poor (for today not at the time of course) computer generated imagery. They just redid everything with CGI just using all the practical stuff as refferences and guides. May i remind you that george was in fact sort of proud to say that every single scene in the PT had at least one CG thing.
Oh and also, for the record, massive use of CGI is really not the only reason why the prequels are so disliked. I could go on and on with a list of things that make the PT soinferior to the OT but this comment is long enough :P
At last, thank you if you had the patience to read my whole comment :)
Have a great day !
the character might be poor. but the background imagery is still amazing
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Maybe you want to go on a rant because you just wanted to or because you're an OT purist, or something else.
There's still way more cgi than in the original trilogy
CG was first successfully meshed with live action in Return of the Jedi. The last large scale practical effects movies were the prequels.
Christus Regnet No they weren't. While there may have been some practical effects, the prequels were still pretty much 90% green-screens and cgi
+Michael McGrath green screen does not equal cgi. in the pre-digital camera age, they used blue screens. blue screens were used in almost every set in empire and Jedi.
+Michael McGrath What do you expect? They didn't have computer effects back then. If they did you can bet your ass they would have used them.
+Michael McGrath "While there may have been some practical effects, the prequels were still pretty much 90% green-screens and cgi" My goodness - you just can't let go of the nonsense. Your comments are not factual. I realize it is embarrassing you've been posting so many comments on so many videos for so long that turn out to be completely false - but seriously - when you are wrong, you are wrong. Just admit it.