Who cares? The OT SFX took ages to develop, were cumbersome, fiddly, and took ages, cumbersome, were fiddly beyond belief, and CGI can do so much more, much easier.
my response would be, LTUM cares. and a host of others, obviously. i think oyu are overlooking some key contextual elements in your VP on the effects as part of the appeal of the OT. if they were 'cumbersome fiddly & took ages' I'd say 'who cares' also. as a viewer i don't give a damn about what lucas went through behind the scenes (cumbersome fiddly etc) to bring the scenes to life; i only wish to enjoy the film for its own sake, and more specifically the story. and, the story only really floats if it's believable, which means they went to great lengths to 'suspend disbelief'. so IMO all that effort was worth it.
and i'll go a bit further: i think the original effects in many ways OUTSHINE cgi. cgi is slick etc but it often comes off canned, artificial, cold. you can usually tell when you're watching something (maybe not you, but i can) if it's an actual physical object that was being filmed, or a computer pixelated one. i prefer the former.
plus greenscreen performances often lack a lifelike intensity because the actor is talking to air, or swinging a sword at air, or holding onto an 'air' steering wheel, or whatever.
i assume you are fairly young. for those of us who saw the OT in the theaters, and remember the immense hype and glory it generated worldwide, there will be no replacement.
and certainly not with a film riddled with dialogue from jar jar binks. Seriously, what a f___ joke.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
"i think the original effects in many ways OUTSHINE cgi. cgi is slick etc but it often comes off canned, artificial, cold."
Depends which era of CGI you mean: Granted, the Prequel CGI is still a work in progress and did cause many complaints about the "artificial look" of it all, but I don't think I've ever heard a complaint about Disney Star Wars CGI, whatsoever.
"plus greenscreen performances often lack a lifelike intensity because the actor is talking to air, or swinging a sword at air, or holding onto an 'air' steering wheel, or whatever."
I'll give you that, but there are "stand-ins" for CGI characters, usually.
"i assume you are fairly young. for those of us who saw the OT in the theaters, and remember the immense hype and glory it generated worldwide, there will be no replacement. and certainly not with a film riddled with dialogue from jar jar binks. Seriously, what a f___ joke."
Is 47 young? No. I just go with what the industry uses these days, and practical effects for spaceship scenes are DEAD, just too, well, impractical.
Why bring up Jar Jar Binks? I never even mentioned him!
reply
share
LTUM (974)
4 years ago
in response to all your answers above:
the technical side is not the point for me. if anyone reads up and down this page they will see the main focus of your comments is on the visuals, ie cgi vs original effects. and they will see my references are to the story line.
and if you don't understand why i brought up jarjar binks, then that explains everything. :)
47 is perfect. you qualify for the old school club. ;)
reply
share