The Surprising Practical Effects of the Star Wars Prequels
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2017
- 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.com/
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 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'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...
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 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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
“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😂
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
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 🎄🎁 ⛄️
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 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
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!!”
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
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.
"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?
@@user-xx6vy9ri8p 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.
@@user-xx6vy9ri8p 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.
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
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
I love these prequels even more now.
"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...
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
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
Fun fact:
John Knoll, the visual effects supervisor for the sequels, prequels, rogue one, and solo, was the guy who invented photoshop!
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
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
The prequels were good but now they look like absolute cinematic masterpieces compared to the disney crap
Episode III was already a masterpiece when it released.
Because they were always masterpieces. C'mon they're by the man himself. I love it.
The Prequels are still the worst
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"
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.
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
1:11 "look at the competition" *laughs in Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter*
This is Star Wars, not the green lantern. These were amazing cgi effects, exactly what we needed. And all the ships and cities are shiny because this was before the takeover of the evil empire, “before the dark times”
We will watch your career with great interest!
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.
0:27 I really hope they realise Lucas was the director not the editor and didn’t do the green-screen.
The prequels broke into a new ball game in the 1990s, they made the mistakes that everyone else could build off of, they'll always be the best in my heart
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
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
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
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.
@@user-xx6vy9ri8p 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 ...
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.
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.
“many people think the prequels arent any good”- The 3%
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
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
"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
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
@@RappelKarton nope, they’re not awful.
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!
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"
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.
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).
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.
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 absolutely disagree with the comment on the art direction. The art direction is one of my favorite aspects of the prequel trilogy. My goodness Episode I has some amazing sets, environments, ships, and costume/makeup.
George Lucas wanted to show a different, more “civilised” pre-Imperial galaxy. Hence the aesthetic of the prequels is more “Apple” than the “Microsoft” looking originals.
People attributed this to “bad CGI” because they didn’t like the shift in aesthetic and didn’t know enough about filmmaking to diagnose the reason why it looked how it looked.
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
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
7:55 Had to do it to em
Bro now that the sequels are stinking the whole franchise up these prequels look amazing.
That's just your opinion, not the Word of God.....oh, wait.
Even God himself would rather watch the Prequels than the shitty disney sequel trilogy.
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.
I for one love the prequels (almost as much as the OT but I rank ROTS at 2nd in my favourite star wars movies of course with ESB at 1) and the clone wars tv show (which is my favorite piece of star wars storytelling trumping all canon books comics movies and other tv shows thus far). This video really opened my eyes even though I knew that the big sets used in the prequels were miniatures but I never knew that they used more practical effects than the OT so Thanks!
LaRone CT-HK47 Star Wars the Clone Wars was the best storytelling show of all time
Look at the naboo transition though, they definitely painted over it quite a bit. And though the model exists, it looks and feels cgi.
look at 5:38 too. That model existed but it looks completely different in the final edit.
4:58 "it was cool to see the future as not shiny"
What do you mean by "future"?
There's one shot in II where all the clones are eating lunch. That took over a hundred days of Morrison eating in front of a screen.
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.
"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.
When I was a kid my favorite movie was one of the prequels
The CGI still looks great.
I think it's a case where in your mind it looks better than it really was. Like how you go back to a videogame you loved from years ago only to boot it up and be repulsed by the lack of anti aliasing, view distance and low quality textures.
The shiny, clean, perfect prequels is sort of an intentional thematic clash with the grungy, dirty OT. It shows the Republic's fall from grace. Yet several locations, such as Tatooine, are still grungy in the prequels and Bespin is sleek and sterile. It isn't a universal rule.
Also my suspense of disbelief vanishes a lot faster when watching bad practical effects over bad CGI.
I like both types of effects. They both have qualities and drawbacks. Its a shame people can't realize that and enjoy both for what they are. Its great to watch all 6 movies and seeing how both types of effects support each other. Its a great and fun way to suspend disbelief.
"If the storytelling was better, nobody would care about the CGI." I can confirm this is true, because I actually enjoy the prequels (although there are times I have to force myself to enjoy I and II) and because I love them I roll my eyes so hard any time I hear people complain about the CGI.
It’s a real shame that the great story is diminished by the way its told.
ExtraRareTrumpSteak Obviously but rogue one was good too.
Josh Dodge If you have to force your self to like something, it probably isn't very good.
Episode 3 I consider a genuine good movie. Episode 1 had its moments and episode 2 I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole
Josh Dodge i know right
"to see the future as not shinny..."
Uhm, it's "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away"
"Long time ago"
I’m a prequels kid. I grew up watching them and are my favorite trilogy in all Star Wars trilogies. No one can change my mind.
I didn't even realize the clones in 3 as a child were fake. They look great. The space battle in 3 looks better than any of the CGI in force awakens
2005 and literally the most beautiful, massive, immersive naval/space scene I gave ever seen.
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 never once complained about the prequels. I love all 6 movies!
There’s 9
@@thegoodreylo4749 I love all 11
@@MariOmor1 Yes we don’t talk about the Clone Wars movie
The practical effects of the prequels were amazing. The problem is they used it on stuff people just assumed was already CGI, and used the CGI on the things that needed to look the most practical ie Jar Jar/troopers/Yoda.
even the cgi they used was fucking revolutionary for the time. Coruscant and other locations still look just as good as what we see in like guardians of the galaxy
i wouldn't say its as good as cgi in gotg, but it's held up really well
It literally doesn't.🤦🏾♂️
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.
People seem to forget that the original trilogy had some cgi, like the hollograms of the first and second death stars and the displays in the x wing/death star.
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 loved the prequels
Zot Tv I love democracy
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.
I feel like the lighting and shadow effects, combined with the added CGI backgrounds and CGI characters really detracted from the miniature sets, which is is unfortunate because they’re so amazing.
Wow, this is one of the best and more smoothly narrated mini-documentaries about any topic I've watched in ages! My congratulations, dude! 👍
After this video I actually said out loud " OK, he makes amazing videos. Seriously he does." Thank you for the quality that you put into each episode.
Thank you for the kind words, friend!
The prequels were my favorite to be honest
Devin Rojas are you butthurt cause someone have an actual opinion?
@Devin Rojas Star Wars fans love one another no matter what and what you said was outta line we all have opinions.
@Devin Rojas *alderaan blows up*
Princess Leia : " No 😐"
*Uncle and aunt are burning to death*
Sexy boy Luke: " 🤔🤔🤔"
Mine too
watch the redlettermedia review of the phantom menace and it will show you how awfull george lucas is
Me: *cant even notice the CGI unless i really think that its CGI*
Him: *_iTS_** **_ReALlY_** **_OBvIoUs_*
You know what I think was cool in the prequels? Instead of hooking up Jedi to wire systems for big jumps, Lucas used air rams, basically launching from the ground rather than a harness. It makes big jumps feel/look a lot harder and more realistic than harnesses, I think.
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.
It looks that way because it was made when CGI was not as developed as today. The Prequels are a great story with an execution problems. Still, they were made with love and were original.
the new trilogy is a POS.
I agree, the new trilogy is a Perfect Original Story
Great story, lmao. What's it about again? Trade disputes? Jarjar stepping in doodoo?
Yeah just a masterpiece.
@@bananian the overarching idea of a jedi prodigy who falls from grace and become a villain has potential. However, when it comes to actually filling out the narrative gaps and nailing the details, Lucas is as lazy as they come.
The prequels were not executed quite as well as the OT but they were executed well enough for what Star Wars is. And as good as the story is in the OT, the story in the prequels is even better. The sequel trilogy is a shit story and is executed horribly.
I agree. The prequels tell a fantastic story! It's sad that so many flaws ended up in it. (Revenge of the Sith is straight up good, though.)
The ship that gets blown up at the beginning of The Phantom Menace was also a practical effect. It was a miniature ship that gets blown up, but still a cool shot.
Nice work. I had no clue miniatures were used so much.
I don't understand why CGI is the forefront of all the prequel hate. I really don't like the prequels, but the CGI is like my seventh or eighth issue with them. There are tons and tons of other more important problems in those movies than the visual effects.
Jack Sheppard Explain the problems please I'm interested to hear your opinion
Because RLM told them it was full CGI and it is a major issue, so people repeated this argument mindlessly.
ricardo diaz bad acting, atrocious dialogue, horrible continuity, terrible pacing, uninteresting plot, structurally messy, awful comedy, over choreographed fights, etc. I could go on and on, but the set design and visual effects are the least of its problems
The only real problem is that Lucas, despite being a visionary director, is a terrible writer. Nonetheless, the overall story about the fall of the Republic was good. It was when you went into the specifics (dialogue and certain character interactions) that things go awry.
MrColuber and even then it's not that bad dialogue wise usually when keeping in mind it was written to play out like Shakespearean plays where the originals were written like a drama/Opera, both trilogies have bad dialogue and character interactions, but not as bad as people think, it doesn't help when many see the originals as perfect films with no flaws where the prequels have all of the flaws, which is not true, they have very similar flaws in many areas.
Thats an amazing video, really opens my eyes
Ah, finally some people agree with my love to the prequels
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