SW: Attack of the Clones

Ron-PRon-P Spaceman SpiffPosts: 8,511
edited March 2002 in Music & Movies
So, anyone catch the "Clone War" trailer last night?

Damn, if Lucas just isn't driving SW into the trash pile. This looks just like Ep.I, a CGI fest. Everything looks so fake and plastic it's sickening. After seeing all the trailers, it looks like he spent about the same amount of time on the cast direction as he did with Ep.I, none.

Some movies were made for the small screen, this is one of them. It looks more realistic this way.

Even the beautiful Natalie Portman cannot save this:
french-9[1].jpg

This will make a great DVD, but until then CGI Wars will wait.


Peace Out~:D
If...
Ron dislikes a film = go out and buy it.
Ron loves a film = don't even rent.
Post edited by Ron-P on

Comments

  • Strong BadStrong Bad Posts: 4,233
    edited March 2002
    I'm looking forward to it. Looks like a really fun movie to just sit back and enjoy. Nothing artsy fartsy to have to analyze. Just plain popcorn fun!

    I'll be in line at the Senator Theater!

    John
    No excuses!
  • -justin--justin- Posts: 939
    edited March 2002
    Yeah, good thing she will be in the movie again. It looks just like Episode I, except Darth is a little older. And hopefully Jar Jar has been killed off (or will be) in Episode II.
    Damn, if Lucas just isn't driving SW into the trash pile.

    You said it man.

    ~JB
  • juice21juice21 Posts: 1,866
    edited March 2002
    although i am not to excited about this movie, this last trailer has looked more promising than any previous ones released thus far...
  • Ron-PRon-P Spaceman Spiff Posts: 8,511
    edited March 2002
    How about that complete 5th Element rip-off of Anakin falling head first thru the flying ships. And that comment Ben makes right after he jumps "I hate it when he does that". Bad.

    Lucas had a vision that was Star Wars, he lost it over the last 20 years. Now all we get is a Lucas CGI show pony. hey world look with I can do with my computer. Sad!


    Peace Out~:D
    If...
    Ron dislikes a film = go out and buy it.
    Ron loves a film = don't even rent.
  • juice21juice21 Posts: 1,866
    edited March 2002
    yes, bad indeed. how about from the first trailer, when anakin screams 'it's obi wan's fault' and throws his glass against the wall...

    anakin, jedi knight and drama queen...
  • mlwaremlware Posts: 29
    edited March 2002
    It might be OK but I'm curiously not excited or even really interested. I just got the dvd of Tsui Hark's Legend of Zu which is also almost complete CGI but it looks really beautiful and it's all based on the feel of traditional Chinese legend so it makes sense that the characters fly around and do supernatural crap with colorful vistas. I mean it looks great, while Star Wars looks like screensavers.

    I'm more looking forward to Minority Report, Undisputed (Walter Hill), Hero (Zhang Yimou and Jet Li), and Hulk. Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great movie if it ever happens.
  • shackshack Posts: 11,284
    edited March 2002
    I for one am looking forward to this movie. I liked Episode I and as far as I'm concerned the CGI are fine. Science fiction has always been about the story and the props...how else are you going to depict things that exist only in someones imagination? The great science fiction stuff has always looked a little fake. War Of The Worlds and Forbidden Planet are good examples. CGI has allowed Lucas (and others) to put on screen things in such detail that could only be described in books and shown by artists renderings. To me movies are all about fantasy and adventure and things outside the norm. The occasional serious, or thought provoking or historically significant movie is all well and good but real life gives us enough of that. I'd rather see Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Shrek, Disney animation etc...etc...etc...

    Bring on Episode II. I'll be at the theater and I will buy the disk.
    "Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right." - Ricky Gervais

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

    "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson
  • Micah CohenMicah Cohen Ruler of the gnome universe Posts: 2,020
    edited March 2002
    Shack, I gotta disagree. CGI is a neat trick, but think about the original STAR WARS (I mean, the real original one, not the re-done, added-to "special edition" I-wanna-sell-it-again-to-the-same-people version): The original STAR WARS relied more on "organic" special effects, and what CGI there was (altho it wasn't called that then, it was more computerized camera movements and miniaturization) was integrated skillfully into the film. Did it look "fake"? Well, it's a sci-fi film. Sure it looked "fake." But it also looked REAL, since it had 3-dimensions, it was a part of the film, it had "heft." (Think about the dirty and crap all over the place, the droids, the multiple setting suns on Tattooine, the buildings... Everything was "real.")

    The new CGI, when it's slapped out to cover inadequecies (like my spelling) and brain-lapses -- allowing wacky story angles and UNREAL images -- just looks even more fake.

    Two things to consider: 1) the fire monster in FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and 2) Robbie The Robot.

    1. The fire monster was the most obvious piece of CGI in FOTR. It was a giant firebreathing monster chasing the characters. But because Jackson skillfully interweaved subtle CGI into his story along with more organic special effects (like forced perspective and props), the fire monster was okay. In fact, I didn't immediately think, "****, that's CGI again." I thought, "WHOA! Get out of the way, little people!" (Well, actually I didn't think that either. But you get my drift.)
    2. ROBBIE! Since you mentioned FORBIDDEN PLANET (one of my favorite sci-fi films) you must think about Robbie! He's totally organic and "real." And the film's overall reliance on organic special effects (forced perspective again, as well as matte painting and stuff) adds to its "realism" (maybe, makes it easier to suspend disbelief and go with it), and makes the psychic monster CGI "okay" in the end.

    Lucas's over-reliance on CGI, and CGI that is tending to look dated already (since I believe he's gotten too big to be as responsive to technology as someone small like Jackson, or even like PIXAR), lends these new STAR WARS movies a sort of comic luster that detracts mightily from any story going on. Check it: Characters are too ripe for ridicule. They are wearing "rat tail" hair styles. There's an over-reliance on CGI to bring the vision to "life" that makes it false and cheap. Lucas has somewhere along the line quit relying on his organic ingenuity to realize realistic worlds, and started relying instead on a computer. The result is fakery.

    Give me "fake" looking real effects anyday over CGI.

    MC
    [email protected]

    "There's nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney
  • Micah CohenMicah Cohen Ruler of the gnome universe Posts: 2,020
    edited March 2002
    Even beautiful Natalie -- looking better than ever -- will probably not be enough to get me to give more money to Mr. Lucas. It's like stuff "made in china." You just have to break the habit and stop buying it.

    MC
    [email protected]

    "There's nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney
  • shackshack Posts: 11,284
    edited March 2002
    Micah - Some people prefer the hand drawn art of the early Disney movies because of their uniqueness and character. Very little of the new stuff is done without the aid of the "computer". Is one better than the other? Some have a preference some don't. I like them both. Drive a 1965 Shelby GT350 and then drive a new 2002 Saleen SR. Both are the same concept... A race car for the street. Some will say that the original was the "True" or "Real" way to go because it was only the power of the machine and the skill of the driver that produced performance. The Saleen on the otherhand is the product of "computer" controls for everything from steering, brakes, fuel management, traction, etc...Those who prefer this car want whatever it takes to go fast. (Formula 1 racing is a more extreme example of this).

    Things change. Somtimes for the better or worse ...but they change. In all of the examples above (including Star Wars) I happen to like both the original and the new. I am not trying to change your mind. You like what you like. Just explaining my position.

    I was not disappointed in Episode I and from what I have seen I will not be disappointed in Episode II. I guess we just disagree.

    Shack
    "Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right." - Ricky Gervais

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

    "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson
  • Ron-PRon-P Spaceman Spiff Posts: 8,511
    edited March 2002
    I am not against the use of CGI. But to base your movie around it, is wrong. Most everything can still be done with sets and modeling, but Lucas is taking the cheap fast way out. More for less. Build the models, build the sets and enhance them with CGI, sure. Just don't build your whole movie from SGI. How about the 100% CGI Yoda? Looks pretty bad. I will not be surprised if Ep. 3 does not even have real life actors in it.

    Lucas has gone from makeing movies to makeing cartoons. At one time he cared about his movies, now all he cares about is the almighty dollar and it shows. He figures no matter what he puts out, as long as it has the Star Wars name, it will make money. His movies have shown that.

    1. ANH
    2. ESB
    3. RotJ
    4. TPM

    I will bet that AofC will be worse that TPM and take 5th place on the list. As Lucas has made his movies they have gotten progressively worse.

    If you like cartoons, you'll like AofC.


    Peace Out~:D
    If...
    Ron dislikes a film = go out and buy it.
    Ron loves a film = don't even rent.
  • shackshack Posts: 11,284
    edited March 2002
    I LOVE cartoons - I grew up with them and have never outgrown them. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker are all really the theatrical versions of comic books. I guess that is why I don't mind what Lucas is doing.

    Has there ever been a better "Actor " than Bugs Bunny...What range...what depth...what emotion...what versitility...he could sing, dance,...there was no limit to his ability....and he worked Cheap! LOL

    On a more somber note. The entertainment field lost another LEDGEND a few days ago. If you ever watched a Bugs Bunny or Roadrunner cartoon you would see his name at the end. He was a great talent.

    3355541562.jpg

    Chuck Jones, the Oscar-winning animator who helped bring Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig and Daffy Duck to life and personally created Wile E. Coyote and his fruitless hunt for the Road Runner, died on FEb. 22 of congestive heart failure at age 89.
    "Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right." - Ricky Gervais

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

    "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson
  • Strong BadStrong Bad Posts: 4,233
    edited March 2002
    I'm in your corner!

    I like the comparison of the 2 cars. Throw my 93 LX 5.0 into the equation. I love the hell out of that car! It's just a loud, fast, gas guzzling, harsh riding neanderthal machine...but what style it has! I love the old ones, the new ones and mine.

    Same thing with the old VS new special FX. The old stuff had class and style. The new stuff does in it's own way.

    I WILL be in line for Episode II. I WILL buy the biggest popcorn and the biggest soda and I WILL enjoy myself.

    Heck...ain't that what movies are for anyway??? Entertainment!!!

    Oh yeah, very sad about the passing of Chuck Jones. What a genious! Bugs Bunny is among my favorites.

    John
    No excuses!
  • shackshack Posts: 11,284
    edited March 2002
    here is my 93 LX 5.0 Coupe
    24423730ydHuagbCNu_ph.jpg
    "Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right." - Ricky Gervais

    "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase

    "Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson
  • Micah CohenMicah Cohen Ruler of the gnome universe Posts: 2,020
    edited March 2002
    Now I'm sad. You had to bring up Chuck Jones? I am a huge Warner Bros cartoon fan. Nothing picks you up like Bugs Bunny -- or Daffy Duck, especially the early Daffy, when he's really crazy -- "Woo hoo! Woo hoo! Woo hoo!"

    Anyway, I understand your opinions, Shack and John. But I have to agree with Ron that "Lucas has gone from making movies to making cartoons."

    You know, it's the same with the Indiana Jones movies. They went from "movie" to "cartoon." By the last film of the trilogy, it's like an Abbott & Costello movie; very different from the dark effective ambience of the first film.

    I don't know why I take this stuff so seriously. Is that weird?

    MC
    [email protected]

    "There's nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney
  • Micah CohenMicah Cohen Ruler of the gnome universe Posts: 2,020
    edited March 2002
    This is from a recent salon.com review of THE TIME MACHINE, but it sums up my feeling about CGI quite nicely:
    But though the effects are far more complex than anything [George] Pal [the director of the original 1962 film] could achieve, they aren't nearly as impressive. Perhaps this is because, with all the technology available to filmmakers today, you don't have to have any particular talent to amaze us. It's easy to show the earth slipping into a second ice age when you've got computer graphics and matte artists and millions of studio dollars at your disposal... Sometimes, watching the new generation of special effects, what I see looks so real that it feels fake. Less technically sophisticated effects from films of the past often retain their capacity to invoke wonder, working at a simple, almost symbolic, level that can tap into real suggestive power.

    Si, senoir.

    MC
    [email protected]

    "There's nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!