SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

You don't get it. If I had to rate the Star Wars movies I'd rate them in the following order:

1) Attack of the Clones
2) Transformers Dark Side of the Moon
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Revenge of the Sith
5) John Carter and the Movie about John Carter In Space
6) JJTrek09
7) A New Hope (Star Wars Episode IV)
8) Return of the Jedi
9) Empire Strikes Back
10) Buckaroo Bonzai and the Beings from the Eight Dimension
11) Transformers Too: Transform Harder
12) Titanic
13) Aliens vs Predator || Requiem for a Dream
14) Starship Troopers


That's also the order SMG prefers to view them in. I however prefer to watch them all at once on 12 simultaneous TVs. I know there's 13 movies, but I watch Transformers III The Wall and Return of the Jedi on one TV at once since they are basically shot for shot remakes. Which one is in the picture is really a subjective choice, I prefer the CGI landscapes of TFIIITHW to the terrible puppetry of ROTJ, so I usually put it in the main picture, except for the amazing new Jabba's Palace dance and the new Ewok song, at which point I switch it to the main picture.

Chronojam posted:

I think you will find that SMG would have the new Planet of the Apes at the top of his Star Wars viewing list, thank you very much.

feedmyleg posted:

I think part of it is that when there are practical effects, it's a lot easier for the actors to be natural and you don't end up with everyone being as wooden as they were in the prequels. Well, that and this time around they'll have a director who don't think of the actors as props to fix in post.

Grendels Dad posted:

I don't know what's so weird about it? Most people are more familiar with making things with their hands than they are with creating things on their computer, so practical effects seem at the very least like the people behind them put effort into them. I think that's a perfectly understandable view, if incorrect. CGI is just a fat dude sitting in front of a computer, practical effects is Jim Hanson lovingly gluing mops and puppets together.

SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

You don't get it. If I had to rate the Star Wars movies I'd rate them in the following order:

1) Attack of the Clones
2) Transformers Dark Side of the Moon
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Revenge of the Sith
5) John Carter and the Movie about John Carter In Space
6) JJTrek09
7) A New Hope (Star Wars Episode IV)
8) Return of the Jedi
9) Empire Strikes Back
10) Buckaroo Bonzai and the Beings from the Eight Dimension
11) Transformers Too: Transform Harder
12) Titanic
13) Aliens vs Predator || Requiem for a Dream
14) Starship Troopers

Corek posted:

What about the Clone Wars animated movie, and the entire TV series following it?

SIR FAT JONY IVES posted:

You don't get it. If I had to rate the Star Wars movies I'd rate them in the following order:

1) Attack of the Clones
2) Transformers Dark Side of the Moon
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Revenge of the Sith
5) John Carter and the Movie about John Carter In Space
6) JJTrek09
7) A New Hope (Star Wars Episode IV)
8) Return of the Jedi
9) Empire Strikes Back
10) Buckaroo Bonzai and the Beings from the Eight Dimension
11) Transformers Too: Transform Harder
12) Titanic
13) Aliens vs Predator || Requiem for a Dream
14) Starship Troopers


That's also the order SMG prefers to view them in. I however prefer to watch them all at once on 12 simultaneous TVs. I know there's 13 movies, but I watch Transformers III The Wall and Return of the Jedi on one TV at once since they are basically shot for shot remakes. Which one is in the picture is really a subjective choice, I prefer the CGI landscapes of TFIIITHW to the terrible puppetry of ROTJ, so I usually put it in the main picture, except for the amazing new Jabba's Palace dance and the new Ewok song, at which point I switch it to the main picture.

meristem posted:

That's an interesting question for the psychologists, then - do people have a cognitive bias towards the practical, as more 'effort'? (Given how the work a lot of people now do does sit only inside computers, this attitude presumes that that stereotypical fat dude doesn't love what he does, *and* that practical effects can't be shoddy etc. etc.)

It's probably so, to some extent, and, if so, Lucas could have simply accidentally stumbled against a block of human irrationality with the prequels. But it also does feel like there's this fashion/shibboleth thing going, where this innate bias has been amplified by the society until the point where it's assumed that 'practical'='good', without questioning why.

feedmyleg posted:

I think part of it is that when there are practical effects, it's a lot easier for the actors to be natural and you don't end up with everyone being as wooden as they were in the prequels. Well, that and this time around they'll have a director who don't think of the actors as props to fix in post.

kiimo posted:

SMG I know you saw your bat signal but it was just a false alarm, JJ pulled it as a goof on Nolan.

TheBigBudgetSequel posted:

It was actually a goof on Zach Snyder. The two have been having a social media game where they try to one up each other with gags featuring the other film. JJ is winning.

Benedick Cuckold posted:

As people have repeatedly pointed out, there were actually a lot of practical sets built for the PT, and a lot of blue screen sets used for the OT.

In order for this argument to have any merit, you'd have to show that the PT acting was worse during scenes with a lot of CGI, and better during scenes with little CGI. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The acting is of a pretty consistent quality all the way through--that is to say, not really that bad at all, and marred only by writing that can be a little awkward.

I mean, I'm sure it's a little more difficult to act around things that aren't really there. But people have been doing that kind of thing for ages. It's a skill actors are supposed to have.

Or, to be flippant:

ARGH gently caress LUCAS. He just doesn't get it! Enough with the blue screen! You couldn't have just built a full-size hangar set with all those millions of dollars?




Now this is what I'm talking about! Practical effects all the way, baby. I can almost feel the polished steel in my hands. Now this director actually gets it! Movie's going to be awesome.

Benedick Cuckold posted:

hhhat posted:

Pieces like this really need to be on display somewhere.

Get on it, Disney.

Chronojam posted:

Are you saying it belongs in a museum?

Corek posted:

What about the Clone Wars animated movie, and the entire TV series following it?

Krowley posted:

There's no "logic" to the CGI vs. PRACTICAL EFFECTS slapfight and I'm pretty sure it all comes down to the fact that them using practical effects means they'd have to build a full-size Millennium Falcon.

And that's rad as hell.

Yaws posted:

The animated movie is the worst Star Wars film. Hands down. The prequels are practically unwatchable but there's at least some high points here and there (the pod race, Darth Maul duel etc.). The animated movie has none of that.

Bongo Bill posted:

That "movie" was the pilot, and it was the kind of pilot that's more like an extended animation test than a proper episode. It's not surprising that so many people wrote it off after such a weak start.

Corek posted:

Also Jabba's uncle is a huge gay stereotype.

Yaws posted:

People would be less up in arms about the over use of CGI in the prequels if they didn't look so lovely.

TheBigBudgetSequel posted:

Specifically a gay sterotype modeled after Truman Capote.

computer parts posted:

It doesn't though, especially in comparison with CGI of the same era (and even some CGI in the present day).

Benedick Cuckold posted:

As people have repeatedly pointed out, there were actually a lot of practical sets built for the PT, and a lot of blue screen sets used for the OT.

In order for this argument to have any merit, you'd have to show that the PT acting was worse during scenes with a lot of CGI, and better during scenes with little CGI. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The acting is of a pretty consistent quality all the way through--that is to say, not really that bad at all, and marred only by writing that can be a little awkward.

I mean, I'm sure it's a little more difficult to act around things that aren't really there. But people have been doing that kind of thing for ages. It's a skill actors are supposed to have.

Or, to be flippant:

ARGH gently caress LUCAS. He just doesn't get it! Enough with the blue screen! You couldn't have just built a full-size hangar set with all those millions of dollars?

TheNakedFantastic posted:

Episode 1 doesn't have a single memorable performance (at least in a positive way).

Lord Krangdar posted:

I'd say Ian McDiarmid's performance is pretty impressive the whole way through, even when he goes Full Evil-Muppet in the end.

Lord Krangdar posted:

I'd say Ian McDiarmid's performance is pretty impressive the whole way through, even when he goes Full Evil-Muppet in the end.

Potential BFF posted:

He seems to genuinely like Palpatine as a character and I don't see how playing a cackling Space Dracula could be anything less than a blast.

computer parts posted:

Something I just thought about - is it made clear whether Anakin knows he's the Chosen One™ as he's being trained, or is that just a thing Obi-Wan and the masters keep to themselves?

I know Obi-Wan does the whole "you were the chosen one" speech after he cut off his limbs but I don't recall it coming up with Anakin present before then.

Corek posted:

Um, Christopher Lee as Count D. is Space Dracula, obviously.

Potential BFF posted:

He seems to genuinely like Palpatine as a character and I don't see how playing a cackling Space Dracula could be anything less than a blast.

Sheikh Djibouti posted:

As much fun as cackling evil villains can be, I personally wish he had been given somewhat different material to work with. Namely, that that the PT had gone further to make the Sith, including Palpatine, more multidimensional and morally ambiguous than was implied in his various reactions (e.g., concerning Qui-gon and Obi Wan: "Kill them immediately!", concerning the execution of the Jedi children: "Do what must be done, Lord Vader. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.", while electrocuting Mace Windu: "Unlimited . . . Power!", etc.). Something closer to to the portrayal of the emperor-to-be in Hero*, perhaps, where, once revealed, the vision of the "antagonist" as a source of true unity and resolution of genuine and widespread conflict is so compelling that it forms part of the reason that the protagonist gives up his quest to kill the emperor and instead allows himself to die. (In my view, an ending like that for Windu, with Anakin witnessing it, would have been much more interesting.) And with the Sith in general following passion, but not always destructive passion and pursuing more clearly worthwhile aims; love drunk dervishes, contrasted with passion denying (and more overtly ossified and corrupt) Jedi monastics.

* This is not to say that Hero was a particularly good movie, only that it's an example of humanizing the antagonist more fully.

Sheikh Djibouti posted:

As much fun as cackling evil villains can be, I personally wish he had been given somewhat different material to work with. Namely, that that the PT had gone further to make the Sith, including Palpatine, more multidimensional and morally ambiguous than was implied in his various reactions (e.g., concerning Qui-gon and Obi Wan: "Kill them immediately!", concerning the execution of the Jedi children: "Do what must be done, Lord Vader. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.", while electrocuting Mace Windu: "Unlimited . . . Power!", etc.). Something closer to to the portrayal of the emperor-to-be in Hero*, perhaps, where, once revealed, the vision of the "antagonist" as a source of true unity and resolution of genuine and widespread conflict is so compelling that it forms part of the reason that the protagonist gives up his quest to kill the emperor and instead allows himself to die. (In my view, an ending like that for Windu, with Anakin witnessing it, would have been much more interesting.) And with the Sith in general following passion, but not always destructive passion and pursuing more clearly worthwhile aims; love drunk dervishes, contrasted with passion denying (and more overtly ossified and corrupt) Jedi monastics.

* This is not to say that Hero was a particularly good movie, only that it's an example of humanizing the antagonist more fully.

Sheikh Djibouti posted:

As much fun as cackling evil villains can be, I personally wish he had been given somewhat different material to work with. Namely, that that the PT had gone further to make the Sith, including Palpatine, more multidimensional and morally ambiguous than was implied in his various reactions (e.g., concerning Qui-gon and Obi Wan: "Kill them immediately!", concerning the execution of the Jedi children: "Do what must be done, Lord Vader. Do not hesitate. Show no mercy.", while electrocuting Mace Windu: "Unlimited . . . Power!", etc.). Something closer to to the portrayal of the emperor-to-be in Hero*, perhaps, where, once revealed, the vision of the "antagonist" as a source of true unity and resolution of genuine and widespread conflict is so compelling that it forms part of the reason that the protagonist gives up his quest to kill the emperor and instead allows himself to die. (In my view, an ending like that for Windu, with Anakin witnessing it, would have been much more interesting.) And with the Sith in general following passion, but not always destructive passion and pursuing more clearly worthwhile aims; love drunk dervishes, contrasted with passion denying (and more overtly ossified and corrupt) Jedi monastics.

* This is not to say that Hero was a particularly good movie, only that it's an example of humanizing the antagonist more fully.

Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarians posted:

Social dominance scores correlate very strongly with these answers to the Power Mad scale. High scorers are inclined to be intimidating, ruthless, and vengeful. They scorn such noble acts as helping others, and being kind, charitable, and forgiving. Instead they would rather be feared than loved, and be viewed as mean, pitiless, and vengeful. They love power, including the power to hurt in their drive to the top.
[...]
“For any group to succeed, all its members have to give it their complete loyalty.” We saw that authoritarian followers endorse such sentiments. But social dominators do not. Oh sure, they want their followers to be super loyal to the group they lead. But they themselves are not really in it so much for the group or its cause, but more for themselves. It’s all about them, not about a higher purpose.
[...]
Social dominators thus admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral.