Paul_Klein
Explorer
As much as I dislike Jar Jar (at least in Episode 1), he is by far the most well-done (effects-wise), entirely CGI character I've ever seen (that includes Yoda, Gollum and, heh the Hulk).
Yes, Anakin riding that Naboo-creature was bad (my vote for worst effect in Ep.1 & 2), but Legolas and the Oliphant, while a cool little scene, looked pretty damn fake too.
I can't decide who has the most CGI talent - ILM or Weta. To be honest, I'd say they are very, very equal.
As for Lucas's directing - I'm not so sure that the problems with the 2 Star Wars prequels is the direction. I believe it is with the acting (first) and writing (second). Lucas's directing is, in my opinion, absolutely fine. I don't believe it's the director's job to get the actors to act better - that's the actor's job (first) and the dialogue they have the speak (second).
And I don't believe a word when I hear people say "Lucas uses CGI to tell the story and Peter Jackson uses it to complement the story." I think they both use it the exact same way - as a complement. Is the story in Star Wars Episodes 1 & 2 about how cool the CGI battles are and the CGI characters are? While Lucas puts a considerable amount of effort and importance into these elements, the answer is no. The story is about the decay and fall of the Republic and its Jedi protectors by a single man - Palpatine, and the rise and fall of a Jedi great - Anakin. Could a story, this story, set in a galaxy far, far away, set on fantastical locations and backdrops, with unearthly aliens, creatures, weapons, starships and vehicles be done with little or liberal use of CGI? Absolutely not! You can't make Star Wars - Lucas, Peter Jackson, Spielburg, ANYONE - without a great big helping of CGI.
And the same is exactly true for Lord of the Rings.
The saga that is Star Wars is as epic and grandiose as Lord of the Rings. So why do many, many people consider LotR to be better than the Star Wars prequels? Several reasons that amazingly enough have little to do with Lucas. (1) The actors in LotR seem to be more passionate about the project than the actors in Star Wars, and therefore their performances are better. (2) LotR (the movies) were still essentially written my Tolkien, with a little help by Jackson. Is Peter Jackson a great writer - better than Lucas? I'd say no. Look at his previous films which he wrote with no help from literary scholars. While I think some of them are fun movies, none of them are technically "great" movies. (3) LotR, despite having many, many years to build a fanatical fanbase STILL had less baggage going into it than the Star Wars prequels did. I think a lot of Star Wars fans were disappointed by the prequels because of nostalgia. LotR fans had never actually "seen" the LotR (ignoring, of course, the cartoons, the paintings, and Leonard Nimoy music videos).
Do I love Lord of the Rings? Hell yes.
Do I love Star Wars? Hell yes.
Could the Star Wars prequels be better? Hell yes. But could a different director make them better? Who knows? But do I think the movie's faults are "Lucas's fault?" No.
Yes, Anakin riding that Naboo-creature was bad (my vote for worst effect in Ep.1 & 2), but Legolas and the Oliphant, while a cool little scene, looked pretty damn fake too.
I can't decide who has the most CGI talent - ILM or Weta. To be honest, I'd say they are very, very equal.
As for Lucas's directing - I'm not so sure that the problems with the 2 Star Wars prequels is the direction. I believe it is with the acting (first) and writing (second). Lucas's directing is, in my opinion, absolutely fine. I don't believe it's the director's job to get the actors to act better - that's the actor's job (first) and the dialogue they have the speak (second).
And I don't believe a word when I hear people say "Lucas uses CGI to tell the story and Peter Jackson uses it to complement the story." I think they both use it the exact same way - as a complement. Is the story in Star Wars Episodes 1 & 2 about how cool the CGI battles are and the CGI characters are? While Lucas puts a considerable amount of effort and importance into these elements, the answer is no. The story is about the decay and fall of the Republic and its Jedi protectors by a single man - Palpatine, and the rise and fall of a Jedi great - Anakin. Could a story, this story, set in a galaxy far, far away, set on fantastical locations and backdrops, with unearthly aliens, creatures, weapons, starships and vehicles be done with little or liberal use of CGI? Absolutely not! You can't make Star Wars - Lucas, Peter Jackson, Spielburg, ANYONE - without a great big helping of CGI.
And the same is exactly true for Lord of the Rings.
The saga that is Star Wars is as epic and grandiose as Lord of the Rings. So why do many, many people consider LotR to be better than the Star Wars prequels? Several reasons that amazingly enough have little to do with Lucas. (1) The actors in LotR seem to be more passionate about the project than the actors in Star Wars, and therefore their performances are better. (2) LotR (the movies) were still essentially written my Tolkien, with a little help by Jackson. Is Peter Jackson a great writer - better than Lucas? I'd say no. Look at his previous films which he wrote with no help from literary scholars. While I think some of them are fun movies, none of them are technically "great" movies. (3) LotR, despite having many, many years to build a fanatical fanbase STILL had less baggage going into it than the Star Wars prequels did. I think a lot of Star Wars fans were disappointed by the prequels because of nostalgia. LotR fans had never actually "seen" the LotR (ignoring, of course, the cartoons, the paintings, and Leonard Nimoy music videos).
Do I love Lord of the Rings? Hell yes.
Do I love Star Wars? Hell yes.
Could the Star Wars prequels be better? Hell yes. But could a different director make them better? Who knows? But do I think the movie's faults are "Lucas's fault?" No.
Last edited:
