Star Wars (Digital Cam Vs Film Cam In Attack Of The Clones)

[CenyddRos]

Ep 2 had over 600 people building sets. George combines live action with computer animation. ILM gave birth to Pixar. That's just the way he works. CGI is still evolving and ILM gets better all the time.

[matteoprez]

George Lucas is one of the most pathetic, boring, untalented film directors ever made it on mainstream success. It's unbelievable how a guy shooting a kids' film, repeating itself over and over, yet making it each time worse, still has people around him.

[cliklab]

@matteoprez ...hahahaha, you are so right. Besides STAR WARS (1977), the only other film I enjoyed by Lucas was THX 1138. I take that back. THX 1138 was his best film. In 2004 re-release he just could not resist remastering the original and adding CGI car chase finale. Ruined the whole film. What is wrong with this guy?

[matteoprez]

@cliklab Well, you're spot on, too. THX 1138 was without any doubts his best film. And it truly is a fantastic one. I read he hated the studio so mch as they slashed it, and I have a feeling he stopped (mentally) growing at that point.

[viplovem]

Hahaha..Star Wars was shot on a cassette...

[SaypheZonE]

really the intended audience could care less. I have shot on digital and film and no one that sees my work has ever raised the question of whether it was shot on digital or film. All these arguments pertain to people that are too self absorbed in their craft to realize few viewers really care. People care more for the story.

[PublicSecrecy]

'Sunc'? That some kind of past-tense of 'synch'?

[surferboy36O]

Wow, shooting an entire movie in front of a blue screen, that sounds like... fun.

[kooksonboards]

I will take the models, and matt paintings of episodes 4, 5 & 6, over the cgi's of 1, 2 & 3 any day, anytime. I still remembered how awed I was as a little kid seeing the first one. The newer ones were a yawn, and it sort of felt like a Disney-fied orgy! In fact, I gave away my Star Wars dvd's that were the updated versions. And as for film vs. digital....I think it was about saving money. Digital is harsher on the eyes than film.

[losMarketGarden]

technology is used to tell a story??? could not be more wrong mr lucas

[TheDM75]

@losMarketGarden Yes it is, could you tell Star Wars story on film without technology? Avatar? No you couldn't.

[losMarketGarden]

@TheDM75 oh sorry I'm mistaken, technology is used to tell shit stories that rely on their effects to draw acclaim, not the actual storyline or characters

[TheDM75]

@losMarketGarden Star Wars doesn't have a shit story... And technology isn't just SFX , it's everything (even if it's film).

[yadsik]

@TheDM75 You CAN tell Avatar without film, and it will be interesting. If you tell the Star Wars prequels without film, you'll notice big problems with the story, and very poor characters.

No doubt, the origianl trilogy was interesting, but the dialogue in the prequels and the stories in general are just so monotonous.

1. You can't connect with the characters because they're not simplified archetypes.

2. No good humour - unbelievable romance.

3. FORCED character development, appears unnatural.

[TheDM75]

@yadsik Digital doesn't affect the script lol...

[yadsik]

@TheDM75 Of course it does, when it's the only concern of Mr. Lucas.

[TheDM75]

@yadsik There are many ways of film making. Star Wars needed Technology.

[yadsik]

@TheDM75 I do not disagree. But Star Wars had a great story, and the actors in the OT could actually interact with real environments and people with scripts you can connect to. The prequels have instead very shallow scripts, and too many effects to the point that the actors rarely respond in a realistic way, they look cold and distant.

Hayden Christensen is a good actor, but when he has lines like that and no set who can blame that he looked like an idiot?

[TheDM75]

@yadsik Yeah, but that's all about the script and the film making techniques... not the technology. I guess they used the technology in a bad way with this movie...

[yadsik]

@TheDM75 Well, that's pretty certain. If you look at the effects they did in the OT with blue screen, like out of window shots, it looks fine, but when you have characters walking through entire rooms which are blue screen it looks fake. The best example is probably in Episode 2, when Obiwan, Mace and Yoda are walking/hovering through the Jedi temple, the entire place looks fake and animated. There aren't any crafts people, like those who made Degobah, or puppets, just a guy and a computer.

[TheDM75]

@yadsik Yeah i know. Blue screens are getting a little more realistic now, when characters walk by, its less noticeable.

[dtwhitney]

@yadsik It's not just a guy and a computer. It takes a lot of people. Visual Effects artists for movies like this run up into the hundreds.

[dtwhitney]

Respond to this video...  Although, you're right about it looking super fake.

[yadsik]

@dtwhitney I used the word craft in a different sense. I don't belittle them as people at all. However, I do think less of films which use CGI where you could work really hard to make something tangible to film, like the original Yoda puppet.

[dtwhitney]

@yadsik That's true.

[kmccarney88]

It never going to happen, but I say get rid of Digital altogether! Its ruining cinema!

[kmccarney88]

Yeah, episode II looked like complete and utter shit in comparison to Episode I & The Original Trilogy. Digital looks absolutely terrible.

Idiotic filmmakers who are "blown away" by a the wider depth of field and sharper images are too dumb to realize that you lose tone and mood when shooting on digital. A digital camera cannot capture light in the same way, in fact it's much harsher, making staged lighting appear much faker than a film image would. Basically, digital look like the syfi channel

[dtwhitney]

@kmccarney88 Seriously? You're going to deride wider depth of field? OK, but you know, Orson Welles and Greg Toland are obviously on my side.

[alecton]

Old people defending Film, and young people defending digital, well... young spirited people. Because there are some twenty somethings that defend film, even though there are some other twenty somethings embracing digital and thriving with it.