How did the original creators of star wars make...
- Thread starter Jafe_45
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A technique called rotoscoping
Pretty interesting if you're all nerdy like me.
*EDIT* had the wrong vid before changed it now. That's what i get for posting while exhausted.
Pretty interesting if you're all nerdy like me.
*EDIT* had the wrong vid before changed it now. That's what i get for posting while exhausted.
Wrong vid lolLilani said:...Except they didn't use Photoshopnothingspringstomind said:They painted it on the film, frame by frame.
fixing it now.
Still more or less the same tecnique, just made digital in our time, with that way of rotoscoping, he'll still need to do it for every frame, and make corrections which the guy in the video lacks, like her sword suddely going in front of her hat.Lilani said:...Except they didn't use Photoshopnothingspringstomind said:
You don't dislike the prequels? Let me fix that for you.Mackheath said:
You'll thank me later.
That said, I kinda prefer how the sabers looked in the original trilogy, the rotoscoping had a certain charm to it that no amount of CGI can replicate, kind of the same with the models, elaborate sets and practical effects vs. blue screens and CGI. (Not to mention it makes life easier for the actors)
The visible wires? The two headed announcer? The lava battle? Visual density just hides a number of sins.Mackheath said:
The original pod-racers posters all had them on. Lucas ordered them returned and destroyed.Mackheath said:
While I could just re-post Mr Plinkett's excellent take down, the number of things wrong with the prequels (even if not compared to the rest of the Star Wars franchise) are numerous. Compared to other Sci-fi, they're bad. Compared to other movies they are bad.
Critics panned them. The public (some of whom had never seen the originals) panned them. The pacing is bad, the acting is atrocious, there's no characterisation, there's no emotion in the battle scenes, there's dreadful discontinuity with itself - never mind the established canon, there's areas of entire impossibility (Coruscant is a city planet? Where exactly does it get the resources to live?), the good guys are dense, the bad guys are even stupider, it damages the sequels by inserting preposterous ideas, there is no main character, the fights are uninspired, the special effects are everywhere - obscuring the action, the plotline moves from stupid to non-existent. It has major movie spoiling problems in acting, dialogue, chemistry and work. The morals behind it (Leave the mum to be a slave, slaughter kids, Help the jungle man with the wacky accents) are bordering on the 1950s. The Jedi lie, cheat and steal. The ....
Oh I can't go on, this is depressing me.
YES, you may have liked it. YES, there's some prettiness. You can say the same about Twilight.
Star Wars (It's not A New Hope, that was added after) has its problems, admittedly, but it still stands against some of the great films of the 70s/80s. It has a reasonably strong internal consistency, semi-wooden acting, and some cock-ups; but it's still used as a template for costumes, quotes and parodies 33 years after it's release.
12 years after its release, what has Phantom Menace brought to the world except the twin light sabre? (Which is a level of stupid all to itself)
And you know the worst thing of all?
Darth Vader didn't need a back story.
That tells you all you need to know.
That was beautiful. But really, my main problem with the prequels is fucking Anakin. Especially in the third movie, someone that stupid can't be a Jedi.The_root_of_all_evil said:The original pod-racers posters all had them on. Lucas ordered them returned and destroyed.Mackheath said:
While I could just re-post Mr Plinkett's excellent take down, the number of things wrong with the prequels (even if not compared to the rest of the Star Wars franchise) are numerous. Compared to other Sci-fi, they're bad. Compared to other movies they are bad.
Critics panned them. The public (some of whom had never seen the originals) panned them. The pacing is bad, the acting is atrocious, there's no characterisation, there's no emotion in the battle scenes, there's dreadful discontinuity with itself - never mind the established canon, there's areas of entire impossibility (Coruscant is a city planet? Where exactly does it get the resources to live?), the good guys are dense, the bad guys are even stupider, it damages the sequels by inserting preposterous ideas, there is no main character, the fights are uninspired, the special effects are everywhere - obscuring the action, the plotline moves from stupid to non-existent. It has major movie spoiling problems in acting, dialogue, chemistry and work. The morals behind it (Leave the mum to be a slave, slaughter kids, Help the jungle man with the wacky accents) are bordering on the 1950s. The Jedi lie, cheat and steal. The ....
Oh I can't go on, this is depressing me.
YES, you may have liked it. YES, there's some prettiness. You can say the same about Twilight.
Star Wars (It's not A New Hope, that was added after) has its problems, admittedly, but it still stands against some of the great films of the 70s/80s. It has a reasonably strong internal consistency, semi-wooden acting, and some cock-ups; but it's still used as a template for costumes, quotes and parodies 33 years after it's release.
12 years after its release, what has Phantom Menace brought to the world except the twin light sabre? (Which is a level of stupid all to itself)
And you know the worst thing of all?
Darth Vader didn't need a back story.
That tells you all you need to know.
OT: Well, it's been said. So here's a kitty.
