PDA

View Full Version : The Prequals Are Too Clean



Jek Porky 2002
03-10-2008, 01:19 PM
Is anyone else with me that the prequal trilogy is too extravagent and clean looking. Part of the appeal of the original trilogy was that everything looked old, battered and dirty looking and you had a feeling that it was set in the past.

The prequals just don't have that same look, don't get me wrong there are scenes that do have that rustic look but the majority just looks too clean cut and glossy.

El Chuxter
03-10-2008, 01:42 PM
I thought you were going to say Padme should've been nekkid.

Exhaust Port
03-10-2008, 01:57 PM
For me it isn't that they look too clean, it's that they look to artificially dirty if that makes any sense. Organized clutter which doesn't look natural. The OT looks very natural. What needs to be spotless is spotless (the Death Star), what needs to be dirty is downright filthy (the sand crawler). It's the small things in the PT that don't show the wear and tear that they should.

A lot of what is said negative is pointing the finger at the use of CGI. I'm not sure that's the (only) reason. Being that I don't know the in's and out's of the making of movies it seems like there is more to it. Jurassic Park was heavily CGI but it doesn't come across as "clean". One thing that struck me with seeing the original matte paintings used is the shear lack of detail in them. Perhaps using CGI to add every bit of detail to every corner of a shot made the images look too good. Pausing a PT movie in a all CGI scene and you can see every speck of detail in even the smallest of corners. Perhaps that is too much.

Even the original models have a surprisingly lack of detail when compared to some of the digital models used.

JON9000
03-10-2008, 03:25 PM
Beyond simple aesthetic preferences, the prequels are "clean" because they represent a relatively prosperous age. The OT represents the era of military dictatorialism, and just like Cuba, they are forced to continuously repair old stuff instead of buying new, as the bounty of the galaxy is used to feed the imperial war machines.

Look in that oddball scrapbook Sansweet put out. The "used" universe look was intentional, and the "pristine" universe is also. This is another case of being disappointed because the PT doesn't conform to our preconceived notions of what SW "should look like" because the OT was our frame of reference.

stillakid
03-10-2008, 04:08 PM
Yeah, that and they spelled Prequel with an "e." Cads. :mad:

TeeEye7
03-10-2008, 04:24 PM
Yeah. What Jon said. :thumbsup:

JON9000
03-10-2008, 06:13 PM
Yeah, that and they spelled Prequel with an "e." Cads. :mad:

"Prequal" is what they say to sell you credit right before taking your house! ;)

Don't sweat the spelling po-po, Jekporky! We've all done it!

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-10-2008, 06:15 PM
I never really fully understood why everyone talks so much about how Star Wars is set in a "used" universe -- I mean, sure, Tatooine and the Rebel stuff are run-down, but everything else is not (the Imperial stuff is downright pristine). There was also the argument that the prequel technology should have been worse or older than the OT technology, but JON's point on this was right on.

Slicker
03-10-2008, 06:20 PM
I don't get why the Prequel stuff should be run down. JON nailed it in saying that since there was no war and most everyone was prospering people could afford to buy new things and get rid of the old.

Kidhuman
03-10-2008, 07:45 PM
Yeah, that and they spelled Prequel with an "e." Cads. :mad:

If you want to criticize someones spelling, please start a sepErate thread.

Deoxyribonucleic
03-10-2008, 08:08 PM
I'm staying out of this one, but I did want to poke my head in here to see how this goes lol lol lol

Actually, I will make a comment: I am in complete agreement with Jon, a prosperous age does indeed show wealth in everything around, which is what the prequels were supposed to do and it made sense. Cuba was a nice analogy.

Exhaust Port
03-10-2008, 08:32 PM
Beyond simple aesthetic preferences, the prequels are "clean" because they represent a relatively prosperous age. The OT represents the era of military dictatorialism, and just like Cuba, they are forced to continuously repair old stuff instead of buying new, as the bounty of the galaxy is used to feed the imperial war machines.

Look in that oddball scrapbook Sansweet put out. The "used" universe look was intentional, and the "pristine" universe is also. This is another case of being disappointed because the PT doesn't conform to our preconceived notions of what SW "should look like" because the OT was our frame of reference.

Lucas used the same approach in the OT which is why the Empire was clean while the Rebels were dirty to separate the Powerful from the Powerless.

My approach to the original post was purely looking at the visual clarity that the PT show which I feel took away from the overall appearance of the movies.

2-1B
03-10-2008, 08:47 PM
I thought you were going to say Padme should've been nekkid.

I would have liked to seen what Anakin was packin' :thumbsup:

Rocketboy
03-10-2008, 09:34 PM
I thought you were going to say Padme should've been nekkid.That was my first thought.
We really needed a honeymoon scene.

Jedi_Kal-El
03-10-2008, 09:43 PM
That was my first thought.
We really needed a honeymoon scene.

Don't know about a honeymoon scene, but I'd love to see a nekkid Padme. Don't have to see Ani nekkin with her.

Devil King
03-11-2008, 12:13 AM
Is anyone else with me that the prequal trilogy is too extravagent and clean looking. Part of the appeal of the original trilogy was that everything looked old, battered and dirty looking and you had a feeling that it was set in the past.

The prequals just don't have that same look, don't get me wrong there are scenes that do have that rustic look but the majority just looks too clean cut and glossy.

The clean look of the prequels has been explained away by Lucas as representing a brighter, happier time in the history of the galaxy. According to his claim, the lived-in look of the OT is explained by the oppression experienced by the galaxy under the oppressive regime of the Galactic Empire. However, this is another in a long line of poor excuses regurgitated by Lucas to justify his over-whelming and realistic-dismissive reliance on CGI. To think that the styalistic inconsistancies can be explained away by claiming a regression of technology due to the presence of an Empire that was clearly driven by more powerful and progressed technology, as stated by Lucas to be the underlying theme of the Empire, is simply lazy excuse-making to down play the reality that he simply feels that good movie making is implied by the unrestrained "imagination" that is allowed by his super-computers and green screens. There is not one moment in the prequels where a CGI character crosses the screen where you aren't thinking to yourself, "wow, that thing is all computer generated." You can look at the Return of the Jedi and actually forget that Jabba the Hutt is a puppet filled with midgets or ESB and dismiss that Frank Oz has his hand up Yoda's robe.

Special effects are a wonderful tool for helping to tell a story, but they are a poor and lazy substitute for actual story telling. And, if anything can be said with absolute certainty, Lucas was more interested in showcasing the advances in CGI made by his company than in making good movies or telling an OT-consistant story. There's no doubt that Mr. Lucas doesn't take his own creation as seriously as we do, and that, to me, serves as an insult to those of us ho have bank rolled his ambitions for the last 30 years.

stillakid
03-11-2008, 12:26 AM
If you want to criticize someones spelling, please start a sepErate thread.

You spelled separate incorrectly.

2-1B
03-11-2008, 12:26 AM
They should redo the Tauntauns with CGI for ESB 25th.

JediTricks
03-11-2008, 01:33 AM
To me, it's that there's no sense of "history" about everything, it's just toys taken out of the box for the first time, the stickers don't have any bubbles and the paint around the canopies aren't chipped. Even in the opulent periods of our human history, the world around us still looked USED, just in a better-kept-up way. Brass railings were worn down, they were just polished better. Airplanes still had oil seepage at seams during flight. Windshields still got dirty. Paint still faded.

stillakid
03-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Lucas always stated that the OT was used because of the downfall of the Republic and all that implies (economics, mood, etc)

It was fair of him to present a much cleaner pre-coup galaxy to visually illustrate the differences.

HOWEVER, looking back through the OT, we don't really see many examples of environments that wouldn't look used or less than spit-shined. Tatooine is always going to a dirty rundown place. The Death Star was dark and cold and metallic. Yavin Moon was an old jungle temple. Hoth was a snow planet with a temporary interior building. The Falcon is an old rundown freighter. The asteroid interior was a monster. Bespin is maybe the closest we see to any real city in the whole of the OT and that looked fairly Prequel-like in its cleanliness. And Endor was a primitive forest planet without major cities.

In contrast, most of the Prequel environments were on Coruscant or other fairly civilized areas of the galaxy. The clean look was helped by the choice of what places we got to actually see.

The Prequels were more or less presented as if the galaxy was a de facto utopia. But, in any Earthly society, even as new stuff is manufactured, there is always a class of people who can't afford it so there is usually old stuff still around being used, sold, traded, rebuilt, etc. As utopian as the Prequels tell us the galaxy is, there still should've been a bit more stuff "run down" than we saw. And yes, part of that overall feeling was brought about by the overuse of CG which, as real as it looks, still doesn't evoke the same sense of realism that actual sets, puppets, etc give. Yoda in ESB is still far more real of a character than any frog-on-a-hotplate Prequel rendition.

JON9000
03-11-2008, 09:34 AM
The clean look of the prequels has been explained away by Lucas as representing a brighter, happier time in the history of the galaxy. According to his claim, the lived-in look of the OT is explained by the oppression experienced by the galaxy under the oppressive regime of the Galactic Empire. However, this is another in a long line of poor excuses regurgitated by Lucas to justify his over-whelming and realistic-dismissive reliance on CGI. To think that the styalistic inconsistancies can be explained away by claiming a regression of technology due to the presence of an Empire that was clearly driven by more powerful and progressed technology, as stated by Lucas to be the underlying theme of the Empire, is simply lazy excuse-making to down play the reality that he simply feels that good movie making is implied by the unrestrained "imagination" that is allowed by his super-computers and green screens. There is not one moment in the prequels where a CGI character crosses the screen where you aren't thinking to yourself, "wow, that thing is all computer generated." You can look at the Return of the Jedi and actually forget that Jabba the Hutt is a puppet filled with midgets or ESB and dismiss that Frank Oz has his hand up Yoda's robe.

Why do you think we never saw Coruscant until 1997? Because Lucas wanted to tee you off by changing to OT? I doubt it. More likely, creating a complete city environment a la Bladerunner was impossible budget-wise. Heck, he didn't even really do it in Empire with Cloud City with model work, just a few crap paintings. So, it sounds like you want the PT to operate under the same technological constraints as the OT just to preserve a "look" for your own sense of "consistency" which Emerson deemed "the hobgoblin of little minds".

Not liking CGI characters because you grew up on puppet Yoda and Sy Snootles with visible wires and really lousy cantina Wolfman masks and painted backgrounds (ROTJ hanger, anyone) is perfectly valid, but the "used" versus "pristine" look is, at least to me, a sepAErate topic.

Remember, also, that the very medium that the movie was shot on (and Stilla would know more about this than anyone, for once ;) ) is completely different. You are now looking at a digital image beamed to a screen instead of something shot on film with its grain and imperfections. I think digital does in fact look a bit more "sterile" and I prefer the old school look, but I am not about to bash Lucas for:

A. using digital to create vistas (and the natural ones he does use in Italy are gorgeous btw).

B. exaggerating the difference in "new" versus "old" to make sure the audience "gets" it.

stillakid
03-11-2008, 10:06 AM
Why do you think we never saw Coruscant until 1997? Because Lucas wanted to tee you off by changing to OT? I doubt it. More likely, creating a complete city environment a la Bladerunner was impossible budget-wise. Heck, he didn't even really do it in Empire with Cloud City with model work, just a few crap paintings. So, it sounds like you want the PT to operate under the same technological constraints as the OT just to preserve a "look" for your own sense of "consistency" which Emerson deemed "the hobgoblin of little minds".
Coruscant could have been created in the era of 1975-1983 via matte paintings and models so there is no real argument to be had concerning that. If it's not in the story, it doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't because it couldn't be done.


Not liking CGI characters because you grew up on puppet Yoda and Sy Snootles with visible wires and really lousy cantina Wolfman masks and painted backgrounds (ROTJ hanger, anyone) is perfectly valid, but the "used" versus "pristine" look is, at least to me,
whoa! This isn't causal, meaning people don't like A because of B where A is CG and B is real stuff. That's ridiculous. Perhaps people don't like CG renditions because they are inherently flawed relative to real things?


a sepAErate topic.
Somebody is going to have to explain why misspelling and poor grammar are celebrated while education and striving for excellence are mocked.


Remember, also, that the very medium that the movie was shot on (and Stilla would know more about this than anyone, for once ;) ) is completely different. You are now looking at a digital image beamed to a screen instead of something shot on film with its grain and imperfections. I think digital does in fact look a bit more "sterile" and I prefer the old school look, but I am not about to bash Lucas for:
WAY more than "once." If people choose to not believe facts and choose ignorance instead (see "sepAErate" above), I can't really help that. ;)

jedi master sal
03-11-2008, 10:27 AM
I've always thought the Battle of Naboo, on the grassy hills was TOO clean.

I've never encountered that many printine grassy hills in my life. Also, where the hell did the STAPs go? And the open air Battle droid carriers? Droid fighters should have been shooting from above, etc.

This should have been a slaughter with the Gungans getting pasted at every turn early on. (Just my two cents)

For the record, I loved AOTC and the Battle of Geonosis was anything but clean, to me.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
03-11-2008, 11:19 AM
I've never encountered that many printine grassy hills in my life.
Well clearly you've never been to Naboo. ;)

As has been said, in ALL the films, what needs to be "used" is "used" and what needs to be "new" is "new." But even the CGI ships have scratches and worn paint on them - look at the podracers, for example. To me, at least, Tatooine looks the same (in terms of used vs. new) every time we see it, across all its appearances.

Naboo, Coruscant, Kamino, and Bespin all seem to be the most "clean" or "new" places. Tatooine, Geonosis, Mustafar, Yavin, Hoth, and Endor seem to be more "run-down" or "used." I think it depends more on where you go than when you're there. To me, one trilogy isn't inherently more "clean" than the other. (I don't really see them as two completely separate things as most here seem to do, though.)

JON9000
03-11-2008, 11:21 AM
Somebody is going to have to explain why misspelling and poor grammar are celebrated while education and striving for excellence are mocked.

Don't worry, my seemingly erudite friend, excellence and education are still revered, it is merely your proclivity for pointing out the shortcomings of others that is being "mocked." (Although I think "gently lampooned" is a more fitting description, as "mocked" implies malice).


I've always thought the Battle of Naboo, on the grassy hills was TOO clean.

I've never encountered that many printine grassy hills in my life. Also, where the hell did the STAPs go? And the open air Battle droid carriers? Droid fighters should have been shooting from above, etc.

This should have been a slaughter with the Gungans getting pasted at every turn early on. (Just my two cents)

I often think that battle would have been better handled in the deep mist that the Gungans came out of, showing that terrain and conditions can neutralize an advantage in equipment (kinda like Star Trek II and the nebula bit). Also, it probably would have looked better in mist as 1998 CGI does leave something to be desired in 2008.


whoa! This isn't causal, meaning people don't like A because of B where A is CG and B is real stuff. That's ridiculous. Perhaps people don't like CG renditions because they are inherently flawed relative to real things?

That's why I love the Yoda puppet in TPM more than the CGI Yoda in AOTC.


Naboo, Coruscant, Kamino, and Bespin all seem to be the most "clean" or "new" places. Tatooine, Geonosis, Mustafar, Yavin, Hoth, and Endor seem to be more "run-down" or "used." I think it depends more on where you go than when you're there. To me, one trilogy isn't inherently more "clean" than the other. (I don't really see them as two completely separate things as most here seem to do, though.)

This point is quite valid. I really think what folks are complaining about is all the CGI and the use of digital recording versus film stock, rather than the "old" versus "new" aesthetic, which is why I think they deserve to be evaluated separately.

Devil King
03-12-2008, 01:42 AM
Why do you think we never saw Coruscant until 1997? Because Lucas wanted to tee you off by changing to OT? I doubt it. More likely, creating a complete city environment a la Bladerunner was impossible budget-wise. Heck, he didn't even really do it in Empire with Cloud City with model work, just a few crap paintings. So, it sounds like you want the PT to operate under the same technological constraints as the OT just to preserve a "look" for your own sense of "consistency" which Emerson deemed "the hobgoblin of little minds".

Not liking CGI characters because you grew up on puppet Yoda and Sy Snootles with visible wires and really lousy cantina Wolfman masks and painted backgrounds (ROTJ hanger, anyone) is perfectly valid, but the "used" versus "pristine" look is, at least to me, a sepAErate topic.

Remember, also, that the very medium that the movie was shot on (and Stilla would know more about this than anyone, for once ;) ) is completely different. You are now looking at a digital image beamed to a screen instead of something shot on film with its grain and imperfections. I think digital does in fact look a bit more "sterile" and I prefer the old school look, but I am not about to bash Lucas for:

A. using digital to create vistas (and the natural ones he does use in Italy are gorgeous btw).

B. exaggerating the difference in "new" versus "old" to make sure the audience "gets" it.

Georg Lucas didn't create Coruscant.

A. That's all well and good when it accompanies a descent story

B the audience "Got it", Lucas just didn't take it into consideration

JediTricks
03-12-2008, 02:46 PM
George Lucas did create Coruscant, just not the name. Coruscant was originally designed for ROTJ, based on an idea for ANH. The EU expanded upon the ROTJ concept idea, and then Zahn came up with the name as he fleshed it out to basically its final conclusion.

Devil King
03-14-2008, 11:23 PM
George Lucas did create Coruscant, just not the name. Coruscant was originally designed for ROTJ, based on an idea for ANH. The EU expanded upon the ROTJ concept idea, and then Zahn came up with the name as he fleshed it out to basically its final conclusion.

So, Lucas did the conceptualization, but other people did the legitimate leg work? Assuming that Lucas came up with the idea that the Galactic Capital was a planet that was total cityscape isn't considering actual history. It wasn't an idea concieved by Lucas or Zahn. That sounds like most of Mr. Lucas's career.

And don't misunderstand, I am a strong believer that the first person to do something doesn't mean they fully realized what could be done with a concept, but it also doesn't imply that conceptualization results in fruition.

Mad Slanted Powers
03-15-2008, 01:43 PM
There are definitely some scenes in the prequels where the CG stands out to me. People had made such a fuss about Jar Jar that I was a little worried going into see TPM for the first time. When he first shows up, he does appear to stand out a bit like he has been inserted into the scene. I noticed it most when he is running behind Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon saying "Exqueeze me." Also, when he jumps in the water, he seems to defy gravity a bit. Maybe he has some natural Force talent? Other than that, the rest of TPM seemed very real to me. It is hard to believe that the pod race was mostly computer created.

I guess I kind of like the crisp clean look that the improved technology can bring. Even by the time ROTJ was released, ANH looked pretty bad by comparison. The space battles seemed slow, the cockpit scene of the Falcon approaching the Death Star didn't look right, and lots of other little things just made it look like sloppy compared to what they were able to do in ESB and ROTJ. The SE treatment was definitely needed for ANH. The changes to the other movies didn't really add too much, and in some cases took away (Lapti Nek, for example). They did make Bespin look better, and the DVD version of ROTJ greatly improved the Rancor scene.

I also agree with the point that was made that the prequels seem more pristine because of the locations that are shown. One thing to keep in mind is that in the Star Wars universe, they have maintenance droids that can be sweeping and polishing and repairing things all of the time. Bespin and the Death Star were about the only places in the OT that would have had that sort of thing. The rebels in the OT probably don't have the resources to spare to be worried about polishing up their fighters and mopping up the hangar deck.

JON9000
03-15-2008, 02:08 PM
So, Lucas did the conceptualization, but other people did the legitimate leg work? Assuming that Lucas came up with the idea that the Galactic Capital was a planet that was total cityscape isn't considering actual history. It wasn't an idea concieved by Lucas or Zahn. That sounds like most of Mr. Lucas's career.

And don't misunderstand, I am a strong believer that the first person to do something doesn't mean they fully realized what could be done with a concept, but it also doesn't imply that conceptualization results in fruition.

Actually I think was done by a fella named Fritz Lang, and since everybody seems so eager to give the man who is responsible for so many fond memories from our collective youth no credit, we may enumerate other concepts that were really not his, but those of Kurosawa, Baum, Joseph Campbell, Phillip Francis Noland, Alex Raymond and untold authors of Germanic, English, and Greek mythology.

The whole concept was borrowed.

jjreason
03-15-2008, 10:12 PM
I've always thought the Battle of Naboo, on the grassy hills was TOO clean.

I've never encountered that many printine grassy hills in my life. Also, where the hell did the STAPs go? And the open air Battle droid carriers? Droid fighters should have been shooting from above, etc.

This should have been a slaughter with the Gungans getting pasted at every turn early on. (Just my two cents)

For the record, I loved AOTC and the Battle of Geonosis was anything but clean, to me.

What this REALLY should have been is an underwater battle. They introduced one of the most interesting environments of the trilogy, and then totally dropped the ball on a great chance to revisit it.

The grass WAS too green, compared to what we're used to seeing on earth. I remember my first impression of that whole battle - "too cartoony". I'll still stand by that - but making Episode I allowed them to do a better job on the subsequent chapters - much like ANH did for ESB and then ROJ.

The PT was another one of GLu's (very successful, imo) experiments in innovative film making, regardless of how we feel about the particulars of the visuals, stories or direction.

JediTricks
03-18-2008, 03:23 AM
So, Lucas did the conceptualization, but other people did the legitimate leg work? Assuming that Lucas came up with the idea that the Galactic Capital was a planet that was total cityscape isn't considering actual history. It wasn't an idea concieved by Lucas or Zahn. That sounds like most of Mr. Lucas's career. That is how Lucas works, he says "design me this" and gives them the concept, they do the designing, and he stamps his approval or gives brief notes like "needs flying cars, tall buildings, art deco". Lucas came up with the galactic capital that was a city-planet though, he was the genesis of this idea as applied to Star Wars.


The grass WAS too green, compared to what we're used to seeing on earth. I remember my first impression of that whole battle - "too cartoony". I'll still stand by that - but making Episode I allowed them to do a better job on the subsequent chapters - much like ANH did for ESB and then ROJ.

The PT was another one of GLu's (very successful, imo) experiments in innovative film making, regardless of how we feel about the particulars of the visuals, stories or direction.If I remember correctly, the grass in the Naboo battle was real, those explosions and such were filmed and then the backgrounds and characters were CGI'ed in.

I totally agree that Lucas used the PT too much as a pushing force to further the tools of moviemaking rather than having those tools ready to make the movie.

JON9000
03-21-2008, 11:36 AM
That is how Lucas works, he says "design me this" and gives them the concept, they do the designing, and he stamps his approval or gives brief notes like "needs flying cars, tall buildings, art deco". Lucas came up with the galactic capital that was a city-planet though, he was the genesis of this idea as applied to Star Wars.

Sometimes, with creatures, his instructions can be pretty interesting. When he was getting designs for Dexter, he had the sculptors combine two of the models. The sculptor asked a really good question: "What's his personality?" Which Lucas very nicely translated to: "If we were to hire an actor, who would we get?" and replied, "Ernest Borgnine" and wouldn't you know, Dex does look a bit like Borgnine and seems to be a character he would play! (Or maybe it's just the power of suggestion!)

JediTricks
03-24-2008, 01:55 PM
If he had said "Ralph Fiennes", it wouldn't have worked, but because Ernest Borgnine is such a specific type of character, it totally does.

Droid
03-24-2008, 02:34 PM
People can say that the original trilogy effects don't hold up, but to me it totally looks real.

In the Phantom Menace I thought the Battle of Naboo looked totally fake. I thought Buzz and Woody would run by. It looked like Toy Story to me.

I thought that when Obi-wan and Qui-Gon are addressing the Gungan Council at the beginning that it looked like a Claymation special. I thought the same thing about Captain Tarpals.

Ben Quadrinaros looked like classic animation. Most of the pod racers looked like Claymation to me also.

I think Watto looked really good and that Yoda looked good in AOTC and ROTS.

Jar Jar always looked like Claymation to me.

They got much better through the three films. I find it hard to believe the clones in AOTC and ROTS were all CGI.

I agree with what many have said here - Lucas pushed the technology when it wasn't ready for the screen yet. He didn't put Jabba in ANH because the technology wasn't there to do what he would have wanted. He should have done the same with TPM.

As for the clean look, I agree. Lucas wouldn't let them keep shining the floors of the Death Star or take the dirt off the bottom of Vader's cape because he said, "People DO walk on these floors." Those issues wouldn't have changed for the prequels. People would have walked down the floors of the Jedi Temple. The Naboo Fighters would have been flown before so there would be dings and scratched. I agree with JediTricks. Everything looked fresh out of the box, like the movie filmed on the day they finished building the Senate. There was no natural wear and tear that we see in society even in times of wealth. The floors in the Temple and other places were clean because no one had ever walked on them because so often they were drawn and not built.

Too clean!

stillakid
03-24-2008, 05:07 PM
For me, a really great comparison example is American Werewolf in London. If that movie was made today, the obvious go-to would be to use CG to show the transformation. But because that technology wasn't available at the time, the filmmakers were forced to find very real ways to make the change happen on a real set with real lights with real film. There's a quality to a real environment with real "things" in it that none of the Prequel films managed to capture, either with most characters and a majority of the background "sets." It's not that they necessarily look "bad" (whatever that means), but they definitely have a different aesthetic that in no way compares favorably with the real things in the Original Trilogy.

x13squadleader
03-26-2008, 06:23 PM
my big problem is with the clones and stormtroopers.the clones looked more beat up and used then a stormtrooper ever did.except maybe the sandtroopers.