PDA

View Full Version : Were all the clones CGI?



mm74md
07-01-2003, 01:59 PM
Just wondering if there were any "real" clones in the movie (with armor on) or were they all computer generated?

Pendo
07-01-2003, 02:05 PM
ALL clones in the movie were CGI :(.

PENDO!

scruffziller
07-01-2003, 03:38 PM
Man I was fooled.:crazed:

Pendo
07-01-2003, 03:45 PM
Man I was fooled.:crazed:
I'm glad someone was...:crazed:

I must admit that seeing it for the first time I didn't realise they were all clones, but the 2nd+ times I've seen it I can spot it instantly :(.

PENDO!

stillakid
07-02-2003, 10:51 AM
I've had the DVD for months but have yet to crack it open. But while channel surfing a couple nights ago, I decided to flip on AOTC for a couple minutes (HBO, I think). The arena battle was on. Man, it looked phenomenally HORRIBLE! Every effect popped right off the screen. The animated bits were extremely obvious and the layering wasn't convincing at all. I don't know if this is inherent to the television broadcast or if I just didn't notice it on the big screen. Even Digital Yoda looked worse than I recall from the theater.

After seeing that, hands down, the old fashioned way of doing fx from the OT beats the snot out of almost everything AOTC gave us. Either that, or the execution of the fx in AOTC was just "wrong." Strange. I'll have to finally watch the DVD to see how that version looks.

Exhaust Port
07-02-2003, 10:59 AM
I'm sure GL will continue to tinker with the PT movies to fix issues like those, just like he did with the OT.

I still haven't bought AOTC on DVD yet. I was all over getting TPM when it came out and actually liked AOTC much better but still haven't bought it. Maybe Santa will be good to me this year.

[DSS]Pedr0
07-02-2003, 10:59 AM
Thats Crazy...i'll Take The Looks Of The Pt Over The Feel Of The Ot Any Day!!

Pendo
07-02-2003, 11:07 AM
I've had the DVD for months but have yet to crack it open. But while channel surfing a couple nights ago, I decided to flip on AOTC for a couple minutes (HBO, I think). The arena battle was on. Man, it looked phenomenally HORRIBLE! Every effect popped right off the screen. The animated bits were extremely obvious and the layering wasn't convincing at all. I don't know if this is inherent to the television broadcast or if I just didn't notice it on the big screen. Even Digital Yoda looked worse than I recall from the theater.

After seeing that, hands down, the old fashioned way of doing fx from the OT beats the snot out of almost everything AOTC gave us. Either that, or the execution of the fx in AOTC was just "wrong." Strange. I'll have to finally watch the DVD to see how that version looks.

I 100% agree with you! IMO ALL CGI looks cartoony, it doesn't blend in with the live action so sticks out like a sore thumb, the movement is too artificial, and is - well put simply... crap :p.

PENDO!

JediTricks
07-03-2003, 02:46 AM
I think most CGI looks cartoony, especially CGI in non-CG environments or CG of living things, but I think with Ep 1 and 2, part of the problem with watching on TV is that the CG lines & textures are really made for the cinema and not TV and have to be properly... um, "rematted" for TV I guess. CG textures and lines really don't hold up as well on the tube as on the silver screen.

Oh, and LFL made not one piece of Clonetrooper armor, it's all CGI. That's straight from the horse's mouth, it was confirmed on SW.com a while back.

gtrain29
07-05-2003, 12:52 AM
I've always thought that all the cartoon characters in the PT looked awful. It is doubly worse because the settings are almost always cartoon backgrounds as well.
It's a shame, because the clone troopers really had potential. What would have been so hard about making armor and outfitting actors so there could be real 3-dimensional troops?

gibbyhayes
07-05-2003, 11:48 AM
Alright you snooty purists, I agree that the effects in the prequels are a bit distracting, but less isn't always more. Back in the day they propped a dewback dummy against a fence, you could see David Prowse's eyes, and TaunTauns looked like something out of a Ray Harryhausen picture.
CGI has its place, it just needs some restraint.

stillakid
07-05-2003, 01:42 PM
Alright you snooty purists, I agree that the effects in the prequels are a bit distracting, but less isn't always more. Back in the day they propped a dewback dummy against a fence, you could see David Prowse's eyes, and TaunTauns looked like something out of a Ray Harryhausen picture.
CGI has its place, it just needs some restraint.


Who's a purist? :confused: I don't think anyone would disagree with you. CG indeed does have its place. It's a tool, nothing more. But GL is trying to do everything with it, short of the main cast.

JediTricks
07-06-2003, 01:47 AM
Prowse's eyes behind the Vader helmet have nothing to do with f/x though - just a costume piece that wasn't designed with dark-enough lenses. It's not like the various ANH lightsaber blade rotoscoping errors.

I don't know of many people who had a problem with the pre-SE versions of the Dewback or the Tauntaun, yet I don't know almost anybody who thought the CG-based Shaak or Eopie or Kaadu looked realistic.



Stilla, what about Jar Jar? He was part of the main cast. And Lucas had plenty of the live actors' scenes altered in one way or another via post-production CGI - everything from eyes pointing in different directions to splicing multiple takes together.

stillakid
07-06-2003, 03:06 PM
Prowse's eyes behind the Vader helmet have nothing to do with f/x though - just a costume piece that wasn't designed with dark-enough lenses. It's not like the various ANH lightsaber blade rotoscoping errors.

I don't know of many people who had a problem with the pre-SE versions of the Dewback or the Tauntaun, yet I don't know almost anybody who thought the CG-based Shaak or Eopie or Kaadu looked realistic.



Stilla, what about Jar Jar? He was part of the main cast. And Lucas had plenty of the live actors' scenes altered in one way or another via post-production CGI - everything from eyes pointing in different directions to splicing multiple takes together.

Okay, human cast. I was trying to speak in generalities to respond to that previous generality. ;)

I never mind an effect, just so long as I'm either not aware that it isn't there, or so long as, in the case of the "impossible" (ie, T2 metal body morphing out of the floor), the effect doesn't look exceedingly fake. The idea behind any kind of effects work is to have it blend seamlessly with any live action footage that is shot. Be it makeup fx, mechanical, pyro, model, minature, matte paintings, or computer graphics.

Look at the club scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? for instance. We all know that Jessica isn't real, but within the parameters of the unique universe we were inside, the blending of her animation with the live footage and lighting was entirely...well, believable. The matte paintings of the White House in the movie DAVE were phenomenal. Seamless.

In stark contrast, the closeups on Yoda in AOTC were not. It is like looking at a moving oil painting pasted onto some live action backgrounds. The same for the atrocious work in the arena sequence. The battle droids look like Shrinky Dinks over top a washed out acrylic backdrop. The shot of Padme getting thrown from the speeder car, while quick, is also very unreal looking. Essentially, it looks like far too little care was taken to ensure a seamless effect like we know is possible in older films, like Terminator 2.


More is not necessarily better.