The Surprising Practical Effects of the Star Wars Prequels
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- A common criticism of the Star Wars prequel trilogy is that they relied too heavily on CGI, and while that may be true, there are a lot more practical effects in those movies than many people give them credit for.
Support me on Patreon: / dylandubeau
Twitter: / dylandubeau
Instagram: / dylandubeau
Website: www.dylandubeau...
What do you think? Let me know in the comments!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsors:
Sita
Roxanne Courchesne
Bit's O Weirdness
Sara
Jeremy
Katie Glover
Erin Fiser
Rae McEwen
Amund Jolle
Frederik Meynen
Isaiah Coplon
Anneli
Chad Shaw
Emily Zinsitz
Jack Ryan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch more:
We had Real Unicorns in the 1980s
• We had Real Unicorns i...
A Strange History of Movie Gimmicks
• A Strange History of M...
The Underground Star Trek Scene
• The Star Trek Movies Y...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Come back for new videos most Wednesdays.
i'll try spinning...
Star Wars Theory That's a good trick! Awesome to have found one of your comments. Can't wait till the next vid!
goodbye there
You got a great channel
Now this is podracing
Star Wars Theory Spinning is not flying...
Honestly, I love the aesthetic of the prequels. I'm personally a little tired of post-apocalyptic and dirty dystopian settings that seem to thrive in sci-fi nowadays, whether it be films or games. On the other hand, many sleek and shiny sci-fi films think that sterile white automatically makes it "futuristic." The prequels got it right. Sure Kamino was sterile white, but most of the other worlds had color and personality. In short, they were beautiful.
The whole backstory to Kamino is that the species on that world can see more of a visible spectrum so their building while appearing just white to everyone else are actually painted in ultraviolet "colours"
P77777777 Really?
It also needs to be sterile if they’re reproducing on a huge scale like they did with the clone army
Kamino being sterile makes sense tho, the facaility where obi wan landed was essentially a huge laboratory.
@@donteventalktome7444
I actually saw it in a lore video awhile back ill try and find it but yeah basically they could see in the ultraviolet spectrum like bees can here and decorated their buildings as such though they appeared sort of pearl/white to outsiders.
I really dislike this "gritty good, clean bad" mentality.
The prequels took place in literally the "civilized" era of Star Wars. Isn't it a cool thing that the art style reflects that?
Hope we will see some civilized planets in future. But all of the planets from recent movies and tv-series are crappy worlds that remind me of a garbage patch.
The Prequels are definitely a period piece, just like George Lucas says. Would you rather have an incredibly exciting and diverse art deco futuristic direction of the prequels, or would you have an original trilogy rip off art direction that wastes the talents of industrial light and magic for the sequels. AKA Planet-killing Stardestroyers. 😕🔫
Fans, and I'm guilty of this, take the "lived in universe" aesthetic from the OT as the norm. Everything or most everything has to be run down, worn, with dust and grime and chipping. And that was the case, but there was also room for pristine environments such as Imperial bases and Cloud City. The OT didn't exactly take us to the more civilized parts of the galaxy, which the prequels did.
Honestly, unless you spend a lot of time working with cgi - or if you are a trained artist, animator or cinematgrapher, You probably will never really understand why people react to the "look" of the prequels the way they do. It has to do with gradients, the palette, hues, color grading and the simiuation of natural light.
I've never once heard anyone say anything perceptive about cgi outside an art school or a a film school.
Frankly, I would hope my hospital and goverment buildimgs are clean and well mantained.
A surprise to be sure but a welcome one
"i promise to put an end to corruption"
*wellcome
Don’t get me wrong. I love Star Wars. But episode 2 is maybe one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen
@@bendavidson9584 Attack of the Clones is great, dude. Assassination, espionage, intrigue - it's a noir film. The action was very well done, the art direction beautiful (VFX not perfect, admittedly, but nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be), the plot fantastic, and most of the acting top notch. It does have some wonky dialogue, but so do the rest of the episodes - "Into the garbage chute, flyboy." My only gripe with the movie is the factory scene; it was too hectic, had almost no practical effects, and Threepio was so annoying. AtoC doesn't deserve the hate it gets.
@@hanburgundy4317 ye but you know....
Padme and anakin romance is horrible.....
At least dooku and obi-wan are great.
This video just shows that people like to copy other people. It's "cool" to bash the prequels and say how bad the cgi is even when it wasn't cgi! People need to have a mind of their own!
Couldn't have said it better myself.
There is still a lot of shitty effects. Most criticism I have with the CGI was more based around characters and a few other things. The worlds they create are surprisingly good and I do think it looks good even today. The problems are a few sets being lazy or just uninspiring. I more criticize the acting, direction, and shitty character CGI. I have legitimate problems with the prequels, so feel free to tell me how wrong I am for obviously being a sheep.
Daniel Randolph ok boomer
@@cleverpsyche115 " Lazy or uninspiring "
Damn. I wonder what you think about the Disney Trilogy then.
bc those poeple dont even know whats the difference between Visual and Special Effects and how green screen actally works they just hate everything i guess
Just goes to show, even back them humans aren't that great at spotting actual CGI.
The question he doesn't answer is how much these sets got touched up using cgi. Which is a thing that is often done and can look amazing, but can also make everything just look cheap and fake. I do agree though, the issue I had with the prequels was never the visuals. Some dodgy effects here and there don't bother me if the core of the film is there.
"If" being the key-word referring to the prequels.
Thomas Walder The biggest failure in the prequels is the use of CGI *characters*, which were extremely obvious the same way the animated characters were obvious in Pete's Dragon (1977). It's good that Lucas used some practical scale models and backdrops, but the poor compositing, lighting, and color choice made the films look like Dark Forces cutscenes.
The Disney Star Wars movies get the effects right, but are terrible for entirely different reasons... mostly for being completely pointless, and a waste of potential. At least the prequels have great memes.
Right on the nail!
But humans ARE good at noticing bad compositing.
This is where the fun begins
Hello there
_GENERAL KENOBI!_
Game time started.
There's aways a bigger fish.
Darth Guilder oh it’s you
The new films have more CGI than the prequels.
Right just because its newer and more polished doesnt make it not cgi still
and more real size sets
Just because its a real size set doesnt mean shit, in my opinion what they did with the smaller scale sets to save money look so much better because its half cgi half diception its not just 100% cgi or 3 really realistic looking massive props becuase shit like that will take a huge chunk for the movie budget
I think it looks like total shit, the original trilogy looked miles better than the prequels in comparison. You can say what you want about the new trilogy, i think it sucks too. But thats not because of bad visual quality, its because of almost everything else. The visual quality of the new trilogy is awesome and much better than the prequels.
@@bobbyb6053 all you're seeing in OT is some fucking toy models & puppets how the hell is that realistic
The biggest misconception about TFA is that they used mostly real sets and practical creature. And yeah they did use some but if look at the behind the scenes there is a lot of green and blue screen used. Cgi is all over the shots in TFA
Yes but it was released 2015. The prequels were 1999-2005.
Back then they rushed to rely on CGI so much when they had to stick to more and more to practical and other methods.
TFA uses a lot of practicals and it is shot better(still not a great film). The prequels look like TV soap opera
The important thing is are the actors interacting with their environment? Sure, even Christopher Nolan uses green screens, but are the actors interacting with something while in front of them?
In TFA, the Jakku bombing scene, there was a long shot of Rey and Finn running.
Were there any shots like that in the prequel? Actors were either standing in one spot or walking slowly. Im guessing it's so they don't run out of fake screens too quickly.
And that's the difference. Any questions?
@The high ground that is such a lie LMFAO
Yep. TFA actually had more effects shots than TPM and no less than AOTC or ROTS.
@The high ground cgi was going to improve regardless of the prequels
Last night I just finished reading a gorgeous book about the ILM model shop on Star Wars from episode IV V and VI all the way through the prequels and I was so surprised to see how much practical effects were use in the prequels. This video just illustrates it perfectly . Love Star Wars
You should watch the behind the scenes in the blu ray collection.
Nemmie which book?
Hi Hector. Sculpting a Galaxy: Inside the "Star Wars" Model Shop: Written by the amazing Lorne Peterson. I't's gorgeous with some great gatefold prints showing great details to geek out on. www.amazon.co.uk/Sculpting-Galaxy-Inside-Star-Model/dp/1933784032/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518395428&sr=1-1&keywords=sculpting+a+galaxy&dpID=51RmbW2GNHL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
Hot Take: ROTS is the best Star Wars movie
Billy Cobb I think it’s one of the greatest films of all time.
@Jimb0 Nope that's not who it works. Liking something is very subjective.
Can relate: AOTC is the best Star Wars movie for me
That's an extremely lukewarm take
And that's a fact
I have absolutely no problem with prequels beeing shiny. That was the point. The Galactic republic was at peace it should be shiny. Then we see episode 3 where the republic is already at the end of the Clone wars and it's already gritty looking.
CGI was ok for it's time I don't see the problem with it. Actors were really good even Hayden. He was great at portraying a conflicted young man, his face acting was at top level. Maybe there were some poorly written and needless dialogs for him, but that doesn't make him a bad actor.
In general I'd say the prequels were great, I enjoyed them I lot and they feeld 100% Star Wars to me. Can't say the same thing about the TLJ and TFA.
TFA is an ok movie, but with boring and unoriginal story. Doesn't really feel Star Wars to me. TLJ is maybe the worst movie I have ever seen. Terrible story writing, awful humor, nothing in common with Star Wars.
i 100% agree with you, specially with haydens acting. Coincidentally good or actually good acting well never know, but it porttrayed anakin perfectly, mixed emotions and an internal battle between dark and light side.
The Last Jedi is the 3rd best Star Wars movie.
George Lucas used CGI so much in the sequels because he was trying to break ground with Industrial Light and Magic.
He launched Pixar from Industrial Light and Magic, the dude was a maverick. IL and M is one of the most respected CGI companies in the world.
They had to get good at the craft somehow.
No, they didn't go overboard with the CGI in the films dude. But Lucas did pave the way for how movies are made now.
Actually twice Lucas has changed the way Hollywood makes movies.
ILM did the effects for a lot of famous movies. Back to the Future and Star Wars are not the only ones they've.
So much in the sequels? Pretty much the only CGI in 4 5 and 6 were the computer readouts.
Matthew B Alexander Jr. I know you're trying to be witty, but the sequels are 7, 8, 9.
They should really be commended on how well the blended the practicals into CGI to the point it was extremely convincing
Is this 2 year old satire?
@@UrielX1212 not really considering how much effects were dated, before you bring out the Jurassic park example check out how much stuff distracts from the cgi in those shots to make them look less fake
I disagree about the Naboo fighters being too shiny. I think they are the coolest ships in the whole franchise.
Daniel Ingle agreed! My personal favorite is the one from the opening of AOTC. Such a beautifully simple and sexy ship design!
And then it went boom... all because Captain Typho had to jynx it...
They look like the E-Type Jaguar or the RAF Spitfire of space ships: beautiful in design and purpose.
I had a lego set of it, it was so awesome. I think there is a lot of similarity design wise between them and the stupid orange cloud cars in the empire strikes back. Definitely improved the design.
Daniel Ingle I think the shininess kind of works, in that the galaxy wasn't in a state of constant war yet. As time and battle went on, however, the grit and grime overtook it. Just my two cents.
What's hilarious is how people assumed the prequels were void of practical effects, yet forget that over 70% of the backgrounds in the originals were matt paintings while 90% of the prequels special effects were practical (using models, sets, filmed on location, and used real life video recordings. The other 10% were cgi, yet even with that, still mixed with practical effects).
The Disney films are cgi filled. More so than Disney wants you to believe, sure they built a few models and things of practical effects. ...and its Mos Espa not Eisley in ep.i
Rogue One probably had the most practical effects in recent years, and the most expensive one to boot since the Imperial tank in Jeddah was an actual armored vehicle they dressed up.
0:27 I really hope they realise Lucas was the director not the editor and didn’t do the green-screen.
I still love the prequels
ROTS is my favorite SW film
And lastly Prequels > Sequles.
Fandom Menacers can't even correct a typo.
Saulo Henrique hmm that was a year ago...
The only thing wrong with Star Wars is the fans
So true.
Fans have always been the main problem.
I think that is the case but not always.
Fans want to Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico) to get raped. Which is disgusting.
But the directors of The Clone Wars just have this thing for making good characters just to waste them.
(Example: Teckla Minnau)
And Disney Star Wars
@@yamaslushy9461 excuse me what?
fun fact Episode 1 have more Practical Effect than the OT and Episode 2 have more than Episode 1 and Episode 3 have more than Episode 2
And The Fanservice Awakens has more CGI than Episodes 1, 2 and 3 *combined* .
not only the CG, The Mary Sue Awakens also had an even lower quality in plot writing and development than the average fan fiction. They didn't took risks with the film, while the prequels not only dared to be a cluster of risks but also they expanded the universe so much that you could do another 6 films with only taking what was happening in the background.
Fury161 preach on man, preach on. And Ep8 just makes it even worse.
that sentence is so hard to read dude
Yeah, it has been fun explaining to all of the hatewagon SW fans that the prequel films used more practical effects than the OT and that VII used a ridiculous amount of CGI. I still maintain that people only hate the prequel trilogy because they've been taught that they're supposed to. When I was a kid, even liking the OT films made you a social outcast and a nerd - you could not be "cool" or fit in at all if you liked Star Wars - but among those who did, each and every prequel film was beloved; especially The Phantom Menace. When Episode I came out, _everyone_ who liked Star Wars loved it and the paradigm started to shift a little as even those who had previously hated Star Wars showed at least a bit of interest. It wasn't until about a decade ago that the internet community decided to start crapping on those films and convincing everyone to hate them. It's really sad.
So basicly the people who hated the Movies didn't informed themselves and where only driven by their anger that it isn't Episode 7..i mean 4 again.
I didn't expect anything else.
That's exactly the reason.
And they got their IV bis with TFA. That was boring af.
Then they got something original but without the creativity and love of Lucas with LTJ.
That sucked af.
Conclusion : Star Wars a part of the fanbased is composed by morons.
There's nothing at all surprising about the practical effects of the prequels. Anyone paying any attention would have known about them for the last 20 years already!
The new Disney movies are the CGI-fests of Star Wars while the prequels are the practical effects-fests of all-time for not only Star Wars but movies in general.
The problem isn't that they used too much CGI - the problem is that it wasn't very convincing.
Not compared to CGI used today, perhaps. At the time, nothing was better and it was VERY convincing - nobody complained about the CGI in The Matrix or in The Phantom Menace, at the time. If you watch The Matrix now, I bet you'll be like "Damn, that CGI isn't very convincing."
I dunno - the Dwayne Johnson scorpion thingy wasn't convincing at the time all on its own, without any need for comparison :)
Also, part of the problem was that the use of CGI had an undue amount of attention brought to it. Jar Jar being first SW digital character, cgi robot army, sets that had to be extended because Liam Neeson is so tall, that kind of thing.
+ariesroc Indeed!
Jan Strzelecki
Jar Jar was actually a live actor with CGI enhancements
i bet if episodes 4-6 were made after Episodes 1-3, 1-3 would be considered better than 4-6
Hmmm, I wonder. Guess we’ll never know
+Murtaza Rizvi I doubt that, Episode 4 originally had many of the problems Episode 1 suffered from, and the people working with Lucas saw those problems clear as crystal, including his wife who edited the final cut and removed many of those problems thus resulting in a fun, fast-paced action/adventure film.
No. Becose the storytelling in 4-6 is better than 1-3. The characters are better, the dialogue, the screenplay, the direction, the cinematography, the editing, the atmosphere all are better in the OT.
Ant it is a myth that Lucas intended SW to be episodic. He made episode IV with the idea that it is only one film - done. Later when it became succeful he started telling that he had 9 episodes in mind...
@@rolandcr no your wrong, if they made 1 -3 first then thise fans would give shit to the new fans of 4-6. Storywise 4-6 is much more straight forward then 1-3. Rebels vs evil empire witg vader and sidous as big bad. The prequels story line is much more complex.
@@rolandcr He already wrote entire backstory in the first draft, you can watch documentaries. However he understood that he could film everything and everyone thought it will be a failure, so he started with Death Star plot and made first movie self-contained.
I honestly have no idea on why people even cared that the movie was a lot of CGI, it looks amazing anyways.
The whole idea of making everything shiny was to emphasize the difference between pre empire and post empire.
I love the prequels. Revenge of the Sith is my second favorite Star Wars movie behind The Empire Strikes Back. It's that good. No problem with the art direction either - it was strange at first but Lucas at least showed us something new and really added to the universe.
Anything from George's mind is acceptable to me. He's a genius.
I love the prequels, the cgi was great in my opinion.
at 1:31. jeez, just because there is more usage of green screen it doesnt mean that the visual effects WOULD CREATE ITSELF MAGICALLY. small minded people.
and i m glad they went with this direction. the prequels vastly expanded the lore what the original trilogy wasnt able to
"to see the future as not shinny..."
Uhm, it's "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away"
"Long time ago"
my favorite star wars movie
1- revenge of sith
2-rogue one
3-new hope
4- empire
5-phantom menace
6- attack of clones
7-return of jedi
8-force awakens
9-last jedi
Empire should be at the top.
mine is
1. Revenge of the sith
haven't seen any originals, and I think we all know that the sequels are last
disney is not canon
_Change my mind_
Revenge of the sith best fits current generation,its dark with action .
Bad cgi but better story than the whole disney trilogy that has better effects.
Mark Sayos Mejia
I’d say the trilogies are almost equal in overall quality
@@gazzy2228 yeah PT is equal OT but ST doesn't have much good characters developments
I have always loved the prequels.
The sequels are train wrecks though.
When I was watching TLJ and the Catno Bight sequences came up I thought to myself "Im watching a prequel movie right now. WTF I thought we were done with this shit"
The say yourself that a lot of these things you originally thought were fake, were not actually fake. Star Wars fans will always complain about something, me included. I think the most impressive feat of the prequels, is the lightsaber duels, because the actors had to under go intense training, and honestly there hasn't been many duels outside of the prequels, that have been particularly impressive, compared to them, I think the prequels may have set the bar too high for duels and now the new movies coming out seem unimpressive at times.
Griffin Bliss the problem is that they took things too far. They turned Jedi Knights into super heroes, running at insane speed and leaping 4 stories. Less is more if you ask me
Maybe true, but you must bare in mind that they have to show not tell that the force grants much power to those who use it.
Just my thoughts
P374Wilma, as opposed to projecting yourself halfway across the galaxy, right?
yunoyuluvit hmmm, yeah, I’m still coming to terms with that and not sure how I feel about it but it’s sure as hell a better use of a mystical force than appearing like super heroes
Welkin Gunther “the only objective thing worse about the prequels.....” what on earth kind of grammar is that? Twice you used the term retarded which, despite being extremely rude and offensive is quite ironic seeing as you write like a 10 yr old. And defending the prequels with examples taken from those very same prequels is hardly a strong defense.
The Force Awakens scene shows that it is not that the sequel trilogy used more practical effect, but the CGI just substantially improved and look much better now. That's why many scenarios of the prequels could be easily spotted as not real. Imagine if the prequels were made nowadays. However, in terms of plot, the prequels are 1000x better than the sequel trilogy.
I would love to go back and re-edit Episode two and three using the raw footage. I think the original color grading and composition is way off and it just looks like PlayStation videogames.
Considering the great visual effects, the potential for awesome scenes are there. :)
I think the issue isn't just the over 'cleanliness' of the look that felt fake, but they contradicted the philosophy 'less is more'. Scenes were overflowing with content that had no relevance to the story. Think of this moment; the original opening had the Corvette and Star Destroyer, flying over blasting at each other. Simple and direct. Today would have used a lot more flash; Corvette would be maneuvering and banking, the Star Destroyer would have unleashed a swarm of TIE fighters, everyone shooting and flying, this would have been crazy to keep track of. It would have made sense if they wanted to use it, but by accident and limited technology, they used a simple one ship two ship chase scene, and now its iconic. How many scenes have actors trying to have a conversation that is critical to the plot, but in the background there's alien creatures or a traffic jam of spaceships, and you can't keep focus on the words being exchanged?
But even if this supports a lack of CGI, the miniatures denied the actors from experience scenes and convincingly acting off of them. That's the importance of practical and real sets, the subtle human reactions to real things. Something as simple as tripping on a root, and stepping around a coffee table are very real actions, even if they're insignificant, they make the characters a little more relate-able. Humans in blue suits with droid bodies, and real clone troopers I think would have helped some of the interactions, and helped the VFX guys evaluate lighting and perspective to a more realistic standard.
Mandalorian maybe building digital sets, but it's on the visible LCD screens, that visually give proper lighting to scenes, but also allow actors to see where they are, and respond to it.
I think the problem with the visuals in the Prequels was that while it did have a lot of practical effects was that instead of using on set lighting they lit it digitally in post which is what gives it that digital look
Agreed
I actually agree despite loving the art direction
I think the problem with the CGI in the prequels is the inconcistency. Some shots looks incredible even to todays standards, and some shots looks awful. But of course people will always point out the bad instead of crediting the good ones. The amount of VFX and CGI work that went into these movies is astonishing and whether you like it or not the prequels had some groundbreaking VFX and CGI that set the standard for modern movies.
Lucas has been criticized by lots of fans for the massive green screen shooting and CGI abuse in the prequels and classic saga special editions, but in this like in everything else he was a precursor and served as a springboard for quite all that has been done in the following decade.
The issue with the prequels isn't their overuse of CGI vs. practical effects. It's that they're objectively mediocre films with lackluster character development, poor acting and absolutely abysmal writing and dialogue.
THAT'S the problem with the prequels. Mystery solved.
2K OT fans have been blinded by nostalgia and have accidentally pressed the dislike button
I think it's probably actually Sequels fans, who insist that the sequels are better than the PT *because of* the CGI.
@@stardancer119 i would say both
@@PU8698 Hm, that's fair.
If you're only concerned about the CGI of the prequels and say it sucked, just stop claiming to be a Star Wars fan. Btw, George Lucas is one the best directors ever! The prequels proved it.
They were inventing these CGI effects at the time so of course they didn't have it down perfectly yet. It looked so much better than anything else made at the time. I'm glad videos like this exist. The model makers for the prequels were/are amazing. They have gone on to do other amazing things. You may have heard of one or two of them too like Adam Savage?
But why do AOTC and ROTS feel so fake at times afterall? It's because just like cgi, miniatures are aftereffects, the same counts for matte paintings (which ROTJ suffers from quite a few times), the actors still have to walk infront a green/blue wall, in the worst cases there isn't even an actual floor and they have to walk in an entirely one-coloured and boring room that will be replaced by the after effects in post production. It's neither matte painting nor miniatures that make a scene "real", it's locations and hand-made settings the actors step in, the same can be applied to creatures: Stop motion creatures aren't essencial any different from their digital counterparts, animatronics are the true alternative to "fake" animals, things the actor can interact with on screen without relying on post production. That being said, I am not a hater of either of those post production techniques, sometimes, quite often actually, it's unavoidable to use cgi/miniatures/map paintings to enhance or even make up a scene, but many things in the prequesl could cave been definitely been done without encancements (clone troopers, multiple locations and aliens).
Joshua Heap Ohps
plenty of matte paintings on Hoth and Cloud City in Empire, but they worked better for whatever reason.
ExtraRareTrumpSteak Are you kidding me? AOTC looks WAY more fake than ROTS!
I think the main problem of the visuals of the prequels was the compositing. Yes there were miniatures, practical effects, and full sets. But when theyre composited, it kinda looks fake. The execution scene in episode 2 for example. It was a full miniature but when anakin and padme enters it, the lighting is blown out and its kind of hazy. Same for Kamino, too bright and to much clean look int terms of the color grading
“…Even though it looks like it's the future It's really a long, long, time ago.”
5:42 I always saw that but it's great to have confirmation
People just notice what they want to notice.
I genuinely quite enjoy the prequels, and this vid makes me appreciate them even more.
Im sorry but the art direction with the sleek designs on ships, and shiny places fits fucking perfectly, this was before the original trilogy, before the dark times of course the places wouldve looked much more majestic and beautiful
This was interesting to learn about and really cool, but it doesn't make me like the films any more or less because it wasn't the problems I have with the Prequels anyway.
I miss the practical effects of Star Wars. People complain about the cgi in the Prequels and yet they use too much of it in the sequels
It may have taken me a year to discover this video, but kudos. A very balanced and revealing exposé on the true nature of how the visual and digital effects were created and used
I actually like the art direction of the prequels. The original trilogy takes place during "The Dark Times". Everything is either run down and scrappy or monolithic and oppresive.
The prequels on the other hand, take place during the last days of a fallen golden age. Everything is shiny and nice, because these are the good "Before Times".
It actually feel thematically appropriate to me.
I liked the prequels and I will *fight* you.
Also, I want to say that I have beef with people who dismiss cgi as "easy".
CGI artists spend hours and hours of their lives slaving over minute details for individual frames.
And if they do it right (and they often do), no body will ever even *notice* it.
McBobbish
HBomberGuy? Is that you?
+McBobbish "the Lightsaber is the weapon that the Jedi used to keep peace in the old republic.... Before the dark time."
McBobbish I completely agree. people don't seem to realize that the rebels only really had access to old broken down hardware
I will fight WITH you then.
I won't rest until the world accepts that ALL SIX of Lucas' babies are masterpieces
Full Fat Videos idk man, I’d say I like the prequels, I think Attack of the Clones is pretty decent and I definitely like Revenge of the Sith, but I can’t see how anyone can call The Phantom Menace a masterpiece. I respectfully disagree with that one.
They deffinitly were better than the disney trilogy.
Scruffy Rodriguez the Disney Trilogy isn’t done yet so we can’t judge it, but I agree - I like The Force Awakens but it’s a little iffy plot-wise and The Last Jedi had some really good bits and some really crappy bits too.
@@HawkSlam The Phantom Menace might be my favorite out of all 6 movies.
Fair enough, I respectfully disagree but I respect you having an original opinion!
Why don't people understand that everything looks shining and brilliant in the prequels because it's at the height of the republic before the Sith plunge everything into despair and darkness... is it that hard to understand the reason for the art direction?
Not only that but there is a great historical argument to support that. Take a look at photos of Havana, Cuba before Castro took over and photos of how it looked after Castro's death. You will then see the dichotomy between the PT and OT is not far fetched at all.
.. After just 20 years?... Maybe a couple of hundred would make more sense...
Andrew Bevan alot can change in 20 years, even you know that
Try not maintenancing your vehicles and buildings for just 5 years. See what happens.
The Empire is sucking in all the resources for their militaristic grip, on an unprecedented scale: the entire known galaxy.
@@andrewbevan4662
Germany 1932
Germany 1942
Do you see a difference? 🤔
I loved the prequels. No one can change my opinion, ever!
I admire your dedication
christina I like them aswell but the new films apart from rogue 1 and solo are complete and utter trash
@@mrsentencename7334 Solo had 3 scenes that I enjoyed, otherwise it was also utter trash to me. Same with Rogue One's final Vader scene.
Rogue One was pretty good; not great, but good. TFA, TLJ, and SOLO were all craaaaaaap.
Amen to that!
Lets face it, CGI and practical effects can both look amazing, or like crap, its how well they're executed and used.
Yes. A lot of people would be surprised just how much CGI is used that would have to be specifically pointed out to them. In many cases, it saves a huge amount of money on production, due to things like not having to buy as many vehicles, not to mention how many lives aren't put at some degree of risk due to stunt work.
LuftWaffle3 which is why the prequel are unbarable to watch.
yep
And the prequels were also the first to use CGI to the extend that they did. Though LOTR came out shortly after, and pushed CGI to a new level. Of course they looked shoddy, but one thing Lucas has always done is pioneer the available tech, and push it to new levels. He did it with the original films, and then when CGI first started, he also helped pioneer it. It might not have looked as good as it might have, but it was early days in the technology, and a lot is owed to the prequels for later, and better looking films.
While some of the CGI was impressive in the prequels, I felt that there were many instances, especially in Episode 3, where CGI could have been avoided. It was pretty obvious in the close up scenes of the clones that they were using CGI to render the clones. I feel that they should've hired some actors to wear clonetrooper armor in scenes where there are fewer clones on screen. When you watch the movie on Bluray some of the CGI becomes more revealing. You can also try watching the fight between Sidious and Windu to see what I mean. Everytime Sidious swings the lightsaber, it is actually a CGI rendering of him. Doesn't make sense to me that they didn't use a stunt double. The CGI rendering of Yoda is extremely impressive though and still holds up to this day.
5:07 I am not one of those fans. I thought the art direction of Attack of the Clones was beautiful and breath taking. The lore of that era was supposed to be a "golden age" of peace and prosperity for the beings of the galaxy. Thats why everything looked so "shiny" and pretty. Why should it look dirty and grity if everyone is enjoying a happy fulfilled life? The Naboo Royal Starship is a prime example of this. The prequels have their flaws just like any other film does. But they are great films none the less.
Actually, that is one of the best things about that movie for me. Epi.2 for me is the least enjoyable of the 6 original Lucas made Star Wars films but I enjoy watching it for the action and obviously just how gorgeous the cinematography is and how well the image in every frame looks. Considering this was the first film that used HD Digital Cameras to be released for a theatrical run, I commend George Lucas, on just a mise en scene level for pushing the technology to meet his needs, not settle or restrain his imagination.
For me episode II is the most beautiful film out of the original six films.
Hah, suck on that, prequel haters.
Galileel Die Prequels sind halt scheiße und das liegt sicher nicht nur am CGI.
The problem is not just the amount of cgi but also the quality
Steinmodus die Prequels sind nicht scheiße
How is the CGI a problem? The prequels were made in the 21st century not 1970...
Darth Revan Doch, sind sie.
I feel like people tried so hard to hate the prequels. Apparently it was bad enough that people imagined cgi where it wasn’t? Kind of sad
Mostly it fell apart in the compositing (actor heads on CGI trooper bodies and strange blurs around characters in The Phantom Menace), but honestly so much of it was seamless to the point where yeah... "This is CGI!" at a time when CGI was completely incapable of doing those kind of images?! Personally I blame Hayden Christiansen's acting, especially in EP2, for my initial dislike.
Um no. The prequels were easy to hate as there are not many redeeming factors. I feel like people like you are trying so hard to love the prequels. Yes the sequel trilogy sucks but that does not make these movies good...even decades later.
@@UrielX1212 yeah no
Many people will disagree with you
@@faronomus1589 I would hope so. Imagine living in a world where no one disagreed with you?
@@UrielX1212 tf, we are just trying to prove people wrong about everything in the Prequels are CGI
Do my eyes deceive me?
*This video will make a fine addition to my collection*
The Senate
Hey! Only Grievous is allowed to say that!
Aren't you Frank?
it's ironic Senate that you could see the future yet could not see your own death......
It´s treason then.
The Senate ‘Tis the season, then 🎄🎁 ⛄️
I am getting sick and tired of the prequel haters.
The prequels are dogshit
WavesDontDie 100 Destruction
I am getting sick and tired of the prequel lovers. People have opinions dick head.
Yah me too
@@Fidel_cashflo u are
If jar jar was a Sith Lord all would have been forgiven
Ari Cagan well it definitely would have been improved
Not really...
Oh there are plenty of hints that he was going to be! The voice actor even did a simulation of an "evil Jar Jar" voice (it's on here) and Jar Jar's motions mimic the "drunken fighting" technique of martial arts legend, used by someone who's trying to disguise their true abilities behind a facade of off-kilter behavior. There are also moments of him giving a Mona Lisa smile when something awful is happening. Everything odd about him makes sense in the context of him being deeply evil. Don't forget, it was he who called the emergency powers vote in the Senate. In the novelization it makes it very clear that it was his perceived innocence that broke the tension in the Senate that allowed the vote to come to pass. He was the center of everything, and I bet Lucas would have gone for it if we hadn't all had a knee-jerk reaction against the character for being TOO goofball.
Jar Jar's actor pseudo-confirmed that was Lucas' original intention on Twitter, take this knowledge as you will.
All hail Darth Binks
"TPM has really bad CGI characters-"
*Literally has the first full CGI character in cinema*
Annoying Kid 47 Which actually made way for other cgi characters that people love. Gollum, Davy Jones to name a few
Do Jurassic Park dinozaurus count?
@@Сайтамен Not really 'characters' are they?
@@Ruylopez778 I mean, they are fully animated creatures interracting with human actors. But I agree, Jar Jar is more difficult to animate because he includes moves of actor.
@@Сайтамен credit where it's due, even though I HAAAATE Jar jar binks, I do think it was real tough to create him.
Remember that little fake Abrams making such a big deal about real sets, real sand....And then proceeded to use more CGI than the prequels.
Because all the always critical "fans" up to EP7 falsely claimed that the majority of the Prequels would have been done in CGI.
Shame the new films look 100× better anyway
@@kinhamid9665 Just because they _look_ better doesn't mean they are better.
Tokiofritz the new ones look amazing dude why are you even complaining, just complain to complain about it I guess
To be fair, he did use a lot of puppets and practical sets too.
I actually appreciate the shininess of the Naboo's spaceships
It gives them a sort of uniqueness among the Star Wars universe which reflects the nature of Naboo itself and its royalty
Yea and people need to remember cgi was starting to be used in most movies. So in a new star wars movie of course they're gonna want to show off what they can do with it to compete.
The prequels are art
Shart
@@pitchbright5960 I see you're NOT a man of culture
Talha Muazzam you don’t even know culture lol
@@pitchbright5960 you dont even know memes
All of it is art episode I-IX
All the "CGI" so many people like to complain about, was actually INVENTED by George Lucas himself in order to make his Star Wars movies.
Most of the effects, whether practical, computer-generated, or blue screen, were all pioneered by Industrial Light and Magic when it was started by George Lucas to make A New Hope, continuing its development throughout the making of the original trilogy, and the prequels, and NO other films used ANY of the technology before it was created by George Lucas for Star Wars.
So, if it looks, "primitive," it's because it WAS.
He was doing something that had never been done before.
When discussing technology like the practical miniatures, set extensions, and animation, "had really evolved," it REALLY EVOLVED because it was evolved by ILM and Lucasfilm during the making of THESE films.
People don't just say that "Star Wars changed the way movies were made," for no reason lol Star Wars actually DID change the way movies were made!
Because the technology necessary to tell these stories didn't exist until George Lucas literally invented it.
People who like to complain about Star Wars, prequels or otherwise, should really try keeping that in mind. 😂👍
"invented" isn't the word I'd use.
"rediscovered" is more true ...
It's not like they didn't have special effects and models before Starwars.
It's that it had been forgotten/lost because the knowledge wasn't shared
I'd suggest watching Thunderbirds and.all the other shows that were created/produced by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson in the 60's.
Starwars was the first to do it again on the big screen after decades.
"Invented" IS the right word, "@@NotTheStinkyCheese."
George Lucas used a small army of talented, "Industry outsiders," and engineers to CREATE the technology needed to suit his vision.
Most famously was the "Dykstraflex," computer-controlled motion camera apparatus that piggybacked old VistaVision cameras onto an ungainly array of hardwired circuits.
The Dykstraflex, (named for lead developer John Dykstra, who worked alongside a team that included engineers Alvah J. Miller and Jerry Jeffress,) allowed Lucas the ability to precisely replicate the repeated camera movements necessary to create Star Wars’ space battles, while adding an incredible (and PREVIOUSLY UNATTAINABLE) freedom of movement along multiple visual axes.
While enabling a crucial component of the movie’s signature aesthetic, Dykstraflex also acted as a gateway into far greater innovations by serving as the FIRST major project out of Lucas’ next business venture: Industrial Light & Magic.
Which he also INVENTED.
And, although computer graphics were already starting to come into their own before he made Star Wars, it was Star Wars that gave audiences their first extended look at 3D wireframe animation in action.
AND, (lol) Because the herky- jerky stop frame animation wasn't good enough for George Lucas when he was when mapping out the Tauntaun sequence and Hoth battle in The Empire Strikes Back, his ILM engineers INVENTED "Go motion."
(A technique that uses computer-controlled rod puppets captured during multiple passes with the camera in order to create a facsimile of natural movement.)
Practical stop-motion would shortly be supplanted by CGI, but, "Go motion," helped build a bridge to the modern effects era; in fact, Steven Spielberg contemplated using it for Jurassic Park before opting to gamble on the even newer CGI technology that George had helped to develop instead.
(None of this is "little-known" information lol it's actually kinda ridiculous I even have to spell it out at all!)
"Nobody used" Jesus christ, have you never watched jurassic park?
@@saaulooo most of Jurassic Park had ILM (Lucas' company) doing the effects sooooo.....
@@blagageorge3824 What about Vertigo? Did 6 year old George Lucas helped with the CGI of that movie?
And Westworld? And what about that hand some dude named Ed did? I think he was the ex-president of some company called Pixar
“It was cool to see the future as not shiny”
First line of every movie: “A Long Time Ago in A Galaxy Far, Far Away”
Apete Koop glad someone else caught on to that😂
We will watch your career with great interest!
The shininess and cleanliness is meant to represent what the galaxy looked like before the Empire took over and let everything get run-down and grubby. If the past looked dirtier than the future then you'd wonder why the Rebels would be fighting to go back to the bad old days.
It's similar to say pre and post Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Pre-Taliban Afghanistan was fairly modern and progressive. Women could dress however they wanted to and many were well educated.
Comparing the Empire to the Taliban.. damn dude...
@@XDlosDominicans well the empire were desgined to be space nazis according to lucas and id say nazis and the taliban are both pretty evil
Same effect in The Incredibles
Goktimus Prime like Caracas used to be a model city, shiny and sleek. The finest roads in the world. Beautiful architecture similar to how Dubai is to us now. But look at it now. A hive of scum and villainy all runned down.
So the Empire also downgraded their tech?? That argument doesn't hold up.
Wow honestly new respect for the prequels
Wifo24
Revenge of the Sith is good
So is Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. :D
B Shells The prequels are love the prequels are life
darth cough cough
Hug back
Revenge of the Sith is actually my second favorite Star Wars film
It's my first!
Billy Cobb
Omg! Ok so for me it's...
1 - Attack of The Clones
2 - Rogue One
3 - Revenge of The Sith
4 - The Last Jedi
5 - The Force Awakens
6 - Empire Strikes Back
7 - The Clone Wars Movie
8 - The Phantom Menace
9 - Return of The Jedi
10 - A New Hope
Please don't hate me for my list 😷
Universe Wonderland AotC is the worst film by far. Then TPM. And after that all the films are pretty good
1. Empire Strikes Back
2. The Last Jedi
3. Rogue One
4. Revenge of the Sith
5. Return of the Jedi
6. The Force Awakens
7. A New Hope
8. Attack of the Clones
9. The Phantom Menace
(It was REALLY hard to organize them from 3-6 so count those at all being just as good as one another)
RazerBladeGamezz _ Omg your fine. U have a good list anyway
The prequels were good but now they look like absolute cinematic masterpieces compared to the disney crap
Because they were always masterpieces. C'mon they're by the man himself. I love it.
The Prequels are still the worst
That’s why I never argued with people who claimed CGI bla bla.. I was like “if you watch the making of, they show you what they built!!”
Too be fair the cgi holds up really well considering how old it is.
Tell that to the "trve" Star Wars Fans
Eh I donno...compare the prequels to something like Lord of the Rings (around the same time)... Star Wars doesn't look so hot by comparison imo.
Except for a couple of glaringly bad things like Palpatine's office in Ep. II where you can really tell that it's a 2D image pasted onto the screen, the rest holds up immensely well
Logan smith
However, the scenes with close up clone troopers and stuff like 9:20 do look pretty terrible
Idk why but the CGI of the prequels is very enjoyable to me, maybe it’s the color, or the shapes, or it’s movement, idk, pretty
Proves the echo chamber OT fan boys created to hear their own wrong feelings on three movies they didnt like because they didn't meet their expectations. So, they rip arguments out of their ass when just because they don't like it, or if you're the nostalgia critic or RLM just make flat exucuses like, "it's boring, I don't know what's happening". The first one is subjective, and no further explanation is EVER given, and Not knowing what's happening is the viewer's fault. The OPENING CRAWL explains what's happening. IT'S IN EVERY MOVIE.
Every movie has flaws, but these three aren't as bad as they convinced others to view it as. Every movie could have been directed better. Combing Lucas's setting driven/world building focus in these movies and his writing/etc flaws don't drown out these films. They have a lot more to offer than the OT in many aspects, world building is one of those. It's a perfect example of putting too much in with limited screen time.
Because of them we have sequels which are total copies of originals.
@@Сайтамен oh so now, as you move from actual arguments that criticize the prequels for themselves, you are blaming them for something they DIDNT CREATE? you really are at the top of the pile of garbage this fandom has become...
@@agustinbaletti I blamed toxic fandom, not the prequels, which I love.
@@agustinbaletti no they created it and with how bad the sequels are it’s funny to watch them fall on their sword.
I love the worlds of the prequels.
What about Forest Planet from TFA and Desert Planet, and Ice Forest Planet and then Salt Desert Planet and Boring Island Planet from TLJ? Honestly the Casino Planet was the only planet that reminded me of the intrresting worlds of the Prequels I'm TLJ
KrissFliss Kashyyyk so far has been my favorite planet in Star Wars
Actually not... It was during the night and look like earth (france coast for exemple), we saw nothing of this casino planet ...
Yeah, lets bash the guy 15 years later for using bad CGI! Its not like he was the one, who PUSHED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? Back in 1999 I didnt see a lot of movies with "good CGI" for some reason.... And trying to compare modern CGI with CGI back there is so fucking stupid.
Also, its a dark age, if a simple, generic, unrealistic and stupid story of rebels vs empire (good guys vs bad guys) with one unexpected twist for the entire trilogy, is considered to be a better story, than complex, complicated storyline of Palpatine's genius manipulations, Clone Wars and main protagonist becoming villain. No wonder Hollywood is only making shit now - people dont deserve anything better.
Wow, you do not understand what makes the OT great at all.
roxasmanable explain then
Михаил Пашковский The last jedi made me hate the original trilogy, sick of Disney dickriding that era and not moving onto anything new
snek, originals were good, when they came out. Now, they are run into the ground so hard, that they are borderline boring to me. Those movies, their era and story were overused by americans. It became so basic, that its not exciting anymore.
This is why I find it's lame when people complain about stuff being CGI. Even if it isn't people won't always know and chalk things they dislike, find ugly, or unrealistic to it being CGI.
There is also WAY more CGI in things than people realize. Rocket Jump has a really great video talking about that, you should watch.
The actors having to rely on green screen sets, making it harder to act is still a problem miniature background or not.
I do think that many action scenes could have looked better with a full practical set
66 likes... a moment of silence for the fallen Jedi ...
I don't think that they could've built an entire city for Naboo, an entire city for Coresaunt(don't know how to spell it), and for more things. The reason why they used the cgi is because of the budget and time not because they wanted it to be cgi.
daddyleon the cgi wasn't the problem imo and the prequels weren't THAT bad just episode 2 that sucked up until the very end where it got pretty good
"It was cool to see the future as not-shiny"
But anyone who's anyone knows that Star Wars doesn't take place in the future...
When you mention how the prequels were shiny, I think that was the whole point that Lucasfilms was trying to convey to the audience. It was basically an era of the Galactic republic where everything was more peaceful and bliss in a way; democracy existed throughout the galaxy. The Trilogy is when the Republic falls and the whole galaxy enters a "time of darkness", a gritty dystopian era in the Star Wars universe that is dominated by an empire. I think it sort of plays well into the whole narrative that was laid out by the movies.
The Death Star interiors were rather slick.
@@steamboatwill3.367 That's because the Empire prospers and rules while everyone else suffers.
Also a lot of the original trilogy takes place on what are essentially the shithole planets of the galaxy whereas the prequels are on mostly more rich worlds
Also a band of rebels would have a lot less shiny gear and maybe less fancy technology than the galactic republic and jedi in theor prime
Yeah but the shininess didn't look real tho, even if it actually was.
@@apemayor3046 yes, because everything is dirty, the rule to make CGI real is to put imperfections on models, also applies to miniatures
Some things make sense though. The ships not looking as gritty was because the war was JUST starting. They hadn't seen combat and most of the trade confederation and naboo ships were new or unused. Same with the droids. In the episode II you can see things get a bit more gritty but the clone wars still hadn't begun yet. In episode III the clones have dirt and mud on them. The ships look much less clean after seeing service for a long time, and the entire episode has a much darker feel to it.
I still think the prequels are inferior to the originals because of the writing. BUT I will say they get MUCH better with age. The prequels are one of the few movies that got better as time went on in my opinion because the more you think about, the more sense a lot of the decisions make. Such as the clean feel of the props.
Tatooine and Geonosis in the prequels look pretty dirty. And the upper hallways of Cloud City in Bespin look pretty darn clean.
Clean and Perfect are not interchangeable, Bespin looked clean because it was supposed to, but it still looked real and was visually imperfect in many senses (light reflecting too brightly in places, shadows being too dark in others, etc). Geonosis and Coruscant, despite the models fluttered in here and there, look completely unbelievable and even when they looked "dirty," they still looked too "perfect," those natural discrepancies you get from a full or mostly live set are picked up, even if only subconsciously, by your brain and are a lot more convincing because they would exist in real life. CGI simply can't replicate that, despite being much better today than it was in 1999-2005.
If you told me Bespin was full CGI and Geonosis was entirely practical, my opinion wouldn't change a bit (although I might not believe you haha). One looks believable and doesn't detract from the narrative, the other looks unnatural and is distracting at best, and ugly at worst.
I think that's the problem, not the CGI itself, but the result it delivers in the case of the prequels.
Who says our city's are believable, skyscrapers are shockingly expensive to make and maintain for relatively little space compared to the cost on open land
One has to want to believe, to enjoy sci-fi, that's why it's science fiction
Aurora Uplinks Skyscrapers are real though, you can clearly see that when you look at them, even from a distance. What are you talking about? If you cant tell the visual difference between standing in the middle of a real life New York city and seeing the CGI cities in the prequels, you might want to get your eyes checked. I don't see your point. The fact is that George Lucas could've made it appear like the characters on screen were in a big city by building tall sets in which only the bottom 20 feet of the buildings are visible, and creating a lot of these buildings aide by side. This is how TV shows like Friends, Seinfeld and such did it at the time, and its also how movies like Total Recall, Bladerunner, and even Star Wars did it in the past and the results look amazing. Lucas actively chose to make his prequels look the way they did, because he was no longer limited by technology and forced to tell a good story instead of relying on effects to try and wow audiences like he had been in the 70s/80s. He did the same thing with his Indiana Jones sequel.
And you don't have to actually "believe" anything to enjoy sci-fi, I knew the apes weren't real in the original Planet of the Apes but it was still great. Even the CGI ones in the reboot series aren't nearly as distracting as the CGI in the prequels, despite not looking very real. I didn't believe it was real, I just wasn't distracted by useless visuals and bad cgi in every frame. Instead the effects were used simply to drive the narrative, and bring the story to life and so naturally they didn't take away from it, but enhanced it. This is what made the golden age of sci-fi and the original SW trilogy so good, the effects not only looked better than most CGI, they were used more intelligently.
The prequels use visual effects in a manner more akin to Michael Bay's Transformers series, which seeks to cram as much visual information as possible onto the screen and include as many explosions and bright objects in the frame to cater to short attention spans, almost always at the expense of the narrative. Sci-fi, like anything else needs good story telling. What makes it special is when special effects are used to bring that story to life. They aren't meant to be the main attraction of the movie like they were in Attack of the Clones, for example; where instead of a dramatic battle/war scene ala LOTR taking place on Geonosis, with tons of opportunity for character building and dramatic tension, they opt instead for a Gladiator style duel with as many lightsabers, as many CGI monsters, and as little focus as possible. Turning what is meant to be one of the biggest battles of the Clone Wars into a cartoonish, predictable joke of a scene that could have easily ended in almost all of the most important Jedi being killed in one place at the same time, but that doesn't matter because gladiator jedis fighting cgi monsters looks "cool" and will sell a ton of toys.
Even George Lucas himself has recently admitted he went too far with the prequels. Just because its sci-fi, doesn't mean you should accept sub-par filmmaking. In every way the originals succeeded, the prequels failed, except in box office revenue. The story, visuals, style, tone, characters, and in-movie world overall was simply better, more engaging/relatable, and more immersive in the originals. The prequels and the story of the clone wars as it exists would have been better off as part of the cartoon series. At least that way you could've bought into the ridiculousness of it right off the bat and the intelligent use of visual effects would no longer have been necessary. The story GL wanted to tell didn't adapt to the big screen well at all, as most poorly written/directed movies don't.
Listen, I know that this is mostly the fact that I grew up watching the prequels here, but I think they are just fine. No they aren't the greatest films ever made. That being said we got what we got and I'm happy that we have more Star Wars to watch.
Btw I love this video! It put me in just the right mood for the movie tomorrow!
Same for me. I also think episode 3 is best movie in the sw series. (just because i fucking love clone wars and anakin)
Alton Burkholder yeah i think it's the fact that you grew up watching the prequels... I grew up watching the original Star Wars and to go from the awesomeness that was the original films to the CGI filled movies with very little story depth... it just really disappointed a lot of people because we were waiting decades for a new Star Wars movie.
MrZampo the clone wars were barely in the movies? Are you talking about the cartoon. Yeah the cartoon was great... too bad the movies skipped over the clone wars. And the actor who played Anakin, Hayden christensen could not act. At all. We don't see Hayden Christensen in a movie again.
Alex Oelkers Hayden did fine with what he had. Not even sir Laurence Olivier could've pulled off those lines
Leo Aguilar oh it's true the writing is bad as well, but I'm not just taking about his lines in the cringe worthy love scenes. He can't act period. He got a couple other movies to star in by name power alone straight after Star Wars but he couldn't act in those movies either.
I bloody love the prequels
episode 2 and 3 are the best.....
I really just like the pod race and Qui Gon & Obi Wan v Darth Maul fight from ep1 but that's me.....
episode 1 are the pod race, Maul fight, space battle, palpatine’s deception and the Jedi
Episode 2- Obi Wan’s detective work, Anakin vs sand people and the battle of Geonosis
Episode 3-battle of corrusaunt, kashyeek and utapau, order 66 and Anakin’s fall to the darkside
And that is just a summarized version
I love these prequels even more now.
Force Awakens had more CGI than the Phantom Menace. And was about 1/10th as original
Yeah and force awakens looked 10 times better. Just because a movie has practical effect that doesn’t mean it looks better. Just like this video literally points out. There was also a ton of models and practical effects in the force awakens.
One of these movies is almost 20 years old, dingbat.
JImbo Furgeson you completely missed my point. You’re talking shit about the force awakens for its cgi when the practical effects in the phantom menace looks worse than the original trilogy. So my point is just because a movie has more cgi that doesn’t mean shit.
You're reviewing the CGI in the present. Of course if you nitpick PM now, it looks bad. But for its time, it was great and I guarantee you that when people in their 20's and 30's watched it, their first expression wasn't "WOW this CGI is sooo unrealistic, let me go back to watching puppet yoda and shitty death star explosions from the OT". PM had original and good graphics for its time.
CGI has been developed for some time now, and in the force awakens, plenty IMMEDIATELY could tell the awful CGI and lens flare.
Welkin Gunther except I thought it looked great. They made sure they used as much practical effects as they can with force awakens. I’m just making the point that practical effects doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good. Like cgi, there are bad practical effects and there are good practical effects. So the fact that the dude in the video thought most of the practical effects was bad cgi, shows that even the practical effects can look bad and not stand the test of time.
Lucasfilm: makes EIII
Mt Edna: erupts
Lucasfilm: IV’E BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS
-Count Dooku
"I have waited a long time for this moment, my tall rocky friend"
"Let me get this straight. You think the prequels were good?"
"I do, and I'm tired of pretending they're not."
Check out anomaly Inc if you're interested and haven't already, I highly recommend him
(puts on hipster glasses)
i liked the prequels, before it was cool to like the prequels
@@dunkanbulk14 In Russia we prefer them to originals.
Саша Черняк are you serious or are you just trolling?
I don't think the Prequels are good. They are good period, its thanks to the haters that we ended up with the sequels.
"see the future as not shiny" well good thing Star Wars doesn't take place in the future... hence the long time a go in a galaxy far far away tag before every film...
Jacob McAllister The future for that point in time. If you were in 2015, 2016 is the future. Same thing “back then”
Tman I'm not really sure what you're getting at but no matter how you spin it Star Wars is not set in the future. Even the original 1977 says "a long time ago" i'm not sure what you're talking about
Jacob McAllister future as in more advanced. Our primitive now would be like their past
Jacob McAllister also the prequels tells a story of abundance, peace and progress, and when the empire rises it makes sense everything looks dirty and improvised.
Did you know that the humans in star wars are actually humans that came from "somewhere"
And that most races evolved from humans, now there is a wierd like belt of energy that wraps around the galexy no one can get in or out...exept for eventually they find a hole in the books and fight the usang vong er w/e
So if they are humans...
Then...eventually they end up on earth and start over 🤔
Stawrwars eh.
“many people think the prequels arent any good”- The 3%
I guess you initially believed all those effects were fake because you were told to by trendy, self-described, pop-culture websites.
+Miles Anderson It's the reason he stated, they looked very clean. If you look at some of the original props for Episode 4, they were also very shiny & clean and they looked awful when compared to the final props used in the film.
Did you see the fucking blue and green screens just in this video?
Every scene where there was an actor, there was a fake screen. Even the chariot they stood on was a fake. Like how disengenuous do you guys have to be?
@@bananian The movie exists in worlds that don't exist so of course they're is going to be blue screens, CGI, and miniatures,
@@lightbox8019
You said it. Cgi, cgi everywhere!
@@bananian Most major landscapes are miniature. And ya, they used cgi because that's the only way you could make some of the scenes. They pioneered landscapes that have never been scene before without computer assisted technology.
This video neatly sums up the "practical effects are always better, CGI is evil" attitude of the wannabe film buffs you see on the internet. Not only are they often completely wrong about where in a film CGI was and wasn't used, but they're ignoring the fact that CGI and practical effects are just tools in the filmmaker's toolbox. It's up to them to correctly utilize the unique strengths and weaknesses of each in order to craft the film.
Most of the time, a properly used practical effect will be more convincing to the average viewer's eye than CGI, studies have proven this. Our brain is particularly good at picking up when something looks off, even if it can't pinpoint why. Regardless of knowing something on-screen is real or not (in either case, you know it isn't real), CGI is far more likely to give you the impression that something doesn't look right in the image you're seeing. See Yoda in ROTS/AOTC vs Yoda in ESB/ROTJ/TLJ for example, or the CGI vs Puppet/Costume Xenomorphs in the Alien series. While the CGI versions are always more detailed, they still feel more like cartoons than living beings. This is the same kind of reasoning as to why it's better to get a stuntman to do something less exciting in front of a camera than to entirely CGI a character doing something ridiculous (see Daredevil movie vs TV series, or Matrix vs Reloaded fight scenes).
Practical effects don't necessarily look more real, they feel more real. Even to someone who doesn't know much about the difference. You don't need to be able to point out every bit of CGI in a still-shot to know the shot's been painted over digitally. Your brain tells you that as soon as it sees it. Both are tools for filmmakers to use, that much is correct. One, however, is much easier to use effectively, and it's not the one that is most commonly used in modern cinema. I think that's the issue people have, rather than CGI itself. Certain movies do it well, but they are by far the exception to the rule. Even poor practical effects (by todays standards) in the 70s and 80s have more of an awe factor than today's average CGI, see Terminator Original vs Salvation for example, or any old Bond film vs Die Another Day.
I knew the Rancor wasn't real, I knew Yoda wasn't real, I knew the Ewoks were just midgets or children in costumes, I knew C3PO was a guy in a metal suit, I knew the Emperor was just wearing make-up, and I always knew Jabba was just a puppet. The difference is that none of that stood out or even mattered to me when I watched it, whereas the CGI instantly distracts me and takes away from the narrative. E.g: I recently watched Rogue One and found myself having to rewatch scenes with Tarkin because I would miss bits of dialogue since my brain naturally focused on his strange unnatural CGI facial expressions instead of just listening to him talk. The dialogue (which is all that was important to the narrative) would have been better delivered with a shady figure who never faces the camera that we presume to be Tarkin (which could have been done by anyone who looks remotely similar to him) and the scene would have been far less distracting and more effective. It's the fact that CGI is so often used when it is not needed that makes it so easy to dislike. The prequels may actually be the best example of this, with all their practical sets and models that were more or less ruined in post-production just because the technology was available and no one was there to say "no" to Lucas.
It isn't a shot at viewers to say they can't tell that real models aren't CGI, it actually makes the filmmakers look bad for making something real look so unnatural, while most (especially at the time) struggle to do the opposite.
TL;DR?: Practical effects don't look more real, they feel more real. In other words, practical effects are far less likely to take away from any immersiveness the viewer has with the movie, which is why the OT is so nostalgic compared to the PT; it immersed you in a universe in a way the PT and NT simply don't. CGI can ruin even a good practical effect, as the prequels demonstrate. Both are useful tools, but I think the reason CGI gets such a bad rep is because it's the first tool most modern filmmakers reach for, when it should really be the last.
TL:Full of BS. It's confirmation bias as much as anything. Jon Favreau had the same exact attitude when directing Iron Man. He kept insisting that they use practical suit shots, until the crew told him many of his favorite shots he thought were practicals were CGI. The issue with bad CGI is more about how the industry contracts the work out, and the fact that effects houses that do amazing work so often go out of business because of the pay model, so incremental and reliable improvements in technique aren't as commonplace as they should be since the best teams and techniques are either lost or watered down by constant churn. Also, you can get all bubbly and sentimental about 70's and 80's practical effects if you like, but even the BEST of those effects simply look like toasted shit to me now as an adult. I put up with them when I was a kid because it was all that was available, but practical puppets and monsters always move and look very similar because the same techniques are required and repeated for them. This has the effect of limiting the look and feel of the creatures and characters to a very narrow range of what can be approximated with physical materials...which works fine for many applications, but is pathetic and ridiculous for many others. CGI, on the other hand, can create characters with completely unique physical dimensions and movement characteristics. Only a pretentious twat will overlook the outlining and stuttery, slow movement of the old school practical characters (and the OBVIOUS use of miniatures and matte paintings that all had the same look), and then turn around and whine about the new effects FEELING fake, even when they are so much more fluid and photo-realistic than the old shit was. Now, I am not trashing practical effects entirely. I don't think CGI can create immersive environments the way that practical can, but really that's where the superiority begins and ends. Sets, certain vehicles, puppets or monsters that aesthetically don't need to be highly dynamic or fluid, up close explosions or fireballs, close range water or liquid effects and human faces are best kept practical. The rest, and that's a LOT, is FAR BETTER in CGI. I do, however, agree that lazy, improperly textured CGI is worse than cheap practical effects most of the time...and that is a SERIOUS problem for lower budget films.
This was also the late 90s so that has to be considered when judging the cgi quality. And if you look around there was waaaaaay worse in other movies of that time. The only thing that put me off was how the way jar jar and the gungans looked and making the close ups of the troopers not actual costumed actors. This video still socks it to the prequel haters who obsessively cry about these movies being too cgi heavy
Chip Ahoy
watch terminator 2 and look up how much of it is practical effects; for film who's cgi is notoriously "dated" you can barley tell the difference between the two.
2nd
Watch the force awakens; the practical effects in that movie are super fake. That vulture thing for example sticks out like a sore thumb.
christopher de leon The entire argument can be boiled down to "You only notice Bad CGI"
Lucasarts: **spends time and love making the prequels**
Audience: MEME MATERIAL
Tow Wong *Lucasfilm spends time and love making prequels.
Lucasarts did the same thing with video games nonetheless.
After all the promotion of The Force Awakens at the prequels expense, I found it ironic that The Force Awakens had both more digital effects and less practical effects than The Phantom Menace. I still remember reading an interview where the visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett set an interviewer straight that was struggling to accept the prevalence of CGI in TFA because he obviously loved the film. Whether you love the prequels or hate them, at least come at it from a place of truth and not self motivated validation.
The complaint about cgi in the prequels is coming from a place of complaining about spectacle over substance. People aren't always the best about putting what they mean in words. But that's a problem that was prominent then and still today. Because computers can do things that couldn't have been done before, that becomes the point of even doing things. It's the difference of "here's some cool ideas, let's find a way to make the story work" vs "here's a great story, let's find a way for it to work". Anyways, for most, the story of the prequels didn't seem up to par, so the assumption was that it was written for spectacle. Might be completely wrong, but that's where the complaints come from.
It was on purpose. You can even see an artist from production saying that their way of making this movie, ep7, was the only way to film SW. Come on. Disney gave the public what they want now they are pissed. I called it Karma.
^ Teun de Heer and ELFanatic Exactly. I don't see why it's so hard for prequel fanboys to accept that the argument was never "more practical effects means better movie."
The argument is that the originals looked better because they didn't rely on digital imagery to try and impress the audience, they told a good story that happened to require good practical effects, which added to the magic of the movies. The story came first, the effects came second, and that's what ep. 7 did too (with CGI and practical effects), and to a lesser extent (some of the CGI-heavy bits were unnecessary, like the crystal foxes, the entire Casino-city storyline, and floating Leia), so did Ep. 8.
The prequel fanboys, like Lucas since 1999, *just. don't. get it.* It's no surprise half of these commenters rate some of the prequels ahead of the original movies, since they don't seem to understand what made Star Wars so great in the first place at all.
@Teun de Heer “The prequels look like garbage because of cgi”
“Hey idiot, they used practical effects, too!!”
“Ok... but they still look like garbage”
@@johnwayne3434 TPM shows why Anakin is so important, his strong attachment to his mom, why Obi-Wan wasn't right teacher to him, why he hates Tatooine, Jedi rules, Palpatine becoming chancellor, world building, etc...And of course, podracing and Darth Maul.
AOTC actually tells a story (Palpatine's rise to power by manipulation Republic and Separatists, Anakin's progression of falling to the Dark Side, start of the Clone Wars), develops characters, shows us real war, new planets, species, ships, droids, world, and has connection with 1 and 3.
What ROTS show us? The largest battle in the Clone Wars, deaths of Dooku and Grievous, Kashyyk battle, Anakin's conflict with Jedi and himself, his weakness (save who he loves), which perfectly works with saving Luke, Palpatine's manipulation and rise to power, Order 66, 2 amasing final battles and the creation of Darth Vader and Empire, birth of Luke and Leia, new hope. It is meaning for the whole Galaxy and is the most emotional.
TFA is a copypaste of ANH without any logic, good characters, with stupid jokes, infinite coincidences, which retconned whole OT: Empire hasn't fallen, Han and Leia are not together, Luke left everyone like a coward, etc...
TLJ is not a movie, it's middle-finger to all star wars fans. Stupid jokes in each serious moment, ruining old characters, copy of OT, not answering any questions, breaking the lore, pointless sequences.
TROS: Somehow Palpatine has returned, lol.
AOTC is 100 times better than any of this hot mess.
I loved the prequels
Zot Tv I love democracy
So people bashed the prequels for their use of "too much cgi" when in reality they actually took the time and effort to make real sculpted models of the sets and props.
You know its bad when you it still looks bad. Ep 2 + 3 look awful.(Ep1 looks great!) Sorry for the people who worked hard on actual props. And btw reducing the prequel criticism to "too much CGI" is completly missing the point.
While yes not every thing in the films is cgi there is still a shit ton of cgi.
RappelKarton episode 3 has the best CGI I have ever seen in a movie??? Your just hating on these movies
@@RappelKarton sorry my guy but that is just not true the visuals are still amazing
That's what I always wondered about the hate. It's like what did they expect. The pressure was on for cgi in those times so of course George is gonna jump into the wave. Especially for a new star wars.
"Star Wars Episode 1 is a low point."
And now we have The Rise of Skywalker.
the saga has come full circle
It’s funny how the the skywalker saga starts with the worst and ends with the worst (although I would argue AOTC is worse than TPM and TROS)
Cal Walker attack of the clones is in my humble opinion way better than the Rise of Skywalker, but that’s just my opinion and you can have yours.
@TheGuy WhoPlaysChess I actually think TLJ is pretty good but that’s my opinion.
@TheGuy WhoPlaysChess At least the actors know how to act