Star Wars - Bladerunner - The Dark Crystal & What Could Have Been

I maintain the best effects in the OT still outclass anything in the prequels. And Bladerunner is an excellent example of what can be achieved with imagination and creativity, something lacking in many of todays CG-heavy blockbusters. AOTC now looks like a dated cartoon, while the Hoth battle in ESB still looks as impressive (and real!) as ever.

And yes, The Dark Crystal is a brilliant showcase of production design and atmosphere. Especially Fizgig

I often think creative limitations are a good thing. The Prequels and indeed most visual effects films made today only reinforce my belief in that notion. I'm sick of filmmakers and visual effects artists proudly dismissing CG as "only a tool." It's no longer just a tool. It's become a crutch. Since you can now do anything you want, and there's no struggle to achieve that vision, even the most beautiful effects shots often feel synthetic, lightweight and meaningless. Some of that has to do with the fact that audiences are more FX-savvy these days. But throwing the camera into unrealistic moves, recording impossible situations, through unrealistic physical space only fosters the audience's distrust (and therefore, disinterest) in the believabilty of what they're watching. I think Sci-Fi's BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and, speaking of Ridley Scott, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN actually did a fairly nice job of grounding their CG in the limitations of reality. I wish more filmmakers displayed that kind of restraint.

Nearly everything in the Prequels could have been done back in the '80s. Jar Jar could have been a guy in a suit. Watto could have been a puppet. Everything else could have been miniatures or matte paintings. The question is, how much would that same overwhelming volume of VFX have cost using photochemical technology back then? I'm guessing it would be significantly more. Prohibitively so.

I know when I watch the PT I can't help but think the experience would be so much more rewarding if Dexter had been a muppet.

Lucas may have lost focus. He might have been more invested in pushing his digital agenda than telling a good story. I don't know. But it's pointless to blame the tools or suggest things might have been better with practical elements. They might have helped the actors in certain scenes, but would an outdated look be an acceptable trade off? Would they have improved the script? Hardly. If doing things the old school way helps fire up a filmmaker's creative juices, a la Michel Gondry, then I'm all for it. But consider the piece Devin put up today about David Lynch. He is excited about the possibilities of digital technology. I know you're talking about CGI, but my point is the tools are only as good as the person behind them. And Lucas, while perhaps misguided, is not lazy. He just seems to have chosen to focus on stuff (the micromanagement like in frame editing) that doesn't seem to have really helped his story at all. Who's to say with puppets things would have been better?

Look, I am sure there have been cases where films have relied on computer generated elements for their whiz bang effect and story was put somewhere behind craft services in order of importance. But, in the absence of that technology, wouldn't those "lazy" filmmakers have just found some other easy avenue to exploit for a cheap effect? Wasn't style over substance a problem in Hollywood long before the first digital creature crawled from a swamp of code?

There are models in the PT than there were in the OT.
Not way as much as the writing and directing has.

But like Litmus said, prohibitively expensive. BLADE RUNNER's city was photographed amazingly, but we didn't see a whole lot of his, whereas we go all sorts of places on Coruscant.

Also, the battle droid fight on Naboo. You really think that could be done with puppets without it costing the entire budget of the flick?

It might NOT have been done. The restrictions of the time may have forced Lucas into more economic storytelling (not to mention less temporal distance from the original material).

There's a part of me that feels CGI, in a way, actually HELPS the PT. It's supposed to be the golden age of the Republic, so to me, all the shine and polish of the CGI helps bring the across, while the older look of the OT helps emphasize this once great Republic fallen into ruin and stagnation. Hardly intentional, I'm sure, but a nice fringe benefit.

Still, I think a lot of this could have been avoided had Lucas simply slapped "Episode II" onto Empire. Then there wouldn't have been the specter of Episodes I through III hovering in the air for 16 years. And if he had decided to pursue the story of Anakin, he could have done it as a single film and not been bound to cover three episodes to get us to A New Hope's IV.

I agree with this thread (mostly), effects only are good and are implemented smoothly into a film, and for a valid reason, mostly when the effects in question are pushing CGI forward in some way. The Matrix did that, Titanic did it, Terminator, Toy Story, LotR, and many others, they didnt just use CGI, they needed it for a specific purpose, and the purpose was to help the story, not just look pretty. (ok, so the story in Titanic was crap, but the realism of the event helped the movie alot)

So yeah, I agree, the PT could have easily been made in the 80's or early 90's. It wouldnt look like the PT looks now (aesthetically or narratively (no stupid droid army), but that my friends cant automatically be a bad thing.

Well, here's the thing. It was that 'used future' aesthetic that set Star Wars apart from the other space fantasies of its time-- that Luke drove a flying car but it was a junker, etc.

I've always been satisfied that this was intentional, and a brilliant insight by Lucas. Now I'm suspecting that he was just covering for budget limitations, and if he made the movies from scratch today everything would look glossy and new. Sigh.

Well, the whole point of the PT is that it is shiny and glossy, because it's this golden age before the war set in, hence why all the ships and fighters were shiny in TPM (and to an extent, AOTC) and now they're a bit more grungy, and headed towards the OT. Like the 30s and 40s and the whole art deco movement and how we remember it as this glossy and glamourous time, as opposed to the shittiness of today where we combine glossy and roughed-up, which is like the OT in effect.

Physical effects (and that includes stop-animation) will always feel more real than CGI, because even when they look artificial your brain knows that they're real things. Does that make sense?

P.S. Add Scott's Legend to your "great '80s" list. I think there's maybe ten optical effects in the whole movie-- everything else is live stagecraft. Blows my mind.

Absolutely. You're right on the money.

It's kind of like that stage of development in Cronenberg's THE FLY when Brundle puts a steak in the teleporter and it comes out tasting fake on the other side. It might look exactly like a real steak but there is still something counterfeit about it. I think CG effects, though usually very impressive, still feel counterfeit, whereas a clunky little stop-motion Tauntaun puppet might not look nearly as impressive, but we all know it truly exists in our real world.

I think that the physical limitations of the real world would have only improved the design and/or performance of characters such as the Gungans or the Battledroids. But because Lucas could do absolutely anything he wanted with them in the digital realm, he might have abused that newfound freedom. Now, more than ever, I think artistic discipline is what many filmmakers are lacking when it comes to CG.

You know, I've seen the prequels more times than I probably should have, and I've never once thought that the battle droids or super battle droids weren't really there. The fact that they talk in jokes and say shit like "Roger Roger" is what makes them annoying, but they hold up visually on screen for me without any problem. The giant battle on Naboo feels like a cartoon, but I've always thought that was because the whole thing is cobbled together, and there's no real-world reference in it that's not manipulated somehow. The films go overboard a lot of the time, but I believe the battle droids are smacking against the wall as much as I believe a taun taun is running.

hey, someone should write a chewer column about this!

http://chud.com/sewerchewers/2856

JM Prater, i can't help but have noticed that you often seem to start threads of your own that are EXACTLY the same as other people's. Why do you do this? Is the discussion going on in here not good enough for you?

Please, tell me why.

i bet you can't wait for middle school.

That book is indeed awesome. It also explains a lot about the story and the characters.

Agreed on Labyrinth -- I watched it again recently and was shocked at how dated it's become, while Dark Crystal remains timeless. How sad that it was Henson's last film.

Just because something was done intentionally and has some reasoning behind it doesn't mean that it was the best choice to make for the movies.

In this case it was the best choice.

I bet David Bowie could kick your ass.

David Bowie could probably kick all of our asses. And how old is he?

I don't think the limitations of real effects are noticeable most of the time. I think of John Carpenter's the Thing when I say this. I'm too busy having the willies scared out of me to notice that, hey, that guy was wax, or dude, they barely show that 'cause it's all shadow. I think the problem is that with CGI, filmmakers think they can show everything, and the audience will like that. I find the most unsettling movies hide the creatures well enough or suggest certain things, leading one's imagination to create something more terrifying. Even in the Romero trilogy, though the zombies were shown as well as dismemberment, the widespread horror of zombies attacking whole cities is often only suggested by people's thoughts or actions. That's the really freaky stuff.

It's like a game of cards. If you have a pair of twos, and you can bluff damn well, you can cheat your opponent out of their pocket book. If you have a full house, and you rub it in your opponent's face at the onset of the game, you're not going to win much. Just the way the cookie crumbles.

Now now, don't fight, you two.

You're 23, yet still using phrases such as "somewhat gay" ? Two words for Labrynth that transends that insightful comment: "Jennifer" and "Connelly."

I don't think the phrase was meant in the grade-school sense. Watch Labyrinth again, and i think you'll find that the words "twee" and "fey" also suggest themselves, pre-legal Connelly notwithstanding.

I class The Dark Crystal as being as iconic to my film development as Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

That is all.

I know this is an old post and all, but I just want to make a point about this very thing, which seems to be an opinion shared by many online filmgeeks these days (no offense, I geuss I'm one of them too).

But anyway, it's the lack of using available resources and technology that causes bad films, not the overuse of them.

There have been plenty of films that are effects heavy and still carry a good story. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Spider-Man 2, The Matrix, and more recently Sin City, Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, etc. etc. And Revenge of the Sith wasn't even all bad, it had it's rather shitty moments, but most of it was pretty good. The problem with that film IMO, is the editing. There were alot of unecessary sections that could've been removed (like Yoda crawling through the tunnels after the Sidious fight) and alot of things they could've kept in the film that would've only made it better, and Lucas really should listen to other people's ideas...for instance one of the concept artists, Ian McCaig I think made a painting and had the idea of Qui-Gon appearing as a ghost to Obi-Wan after Order 66, that could've worked nicely.

Anyway, getting to the point Lucas didn't need to show restraint when it came to the visuals, he needed to hire someone else to write and/or direct the films. Because if you take away all or most of the visual effects used in the prequels, your still left with shitty acting, bad dialogue, and a story that doesn't have enough of a focus.

Remember, there were bad "special-effects" films back in the 80's too. Some of them alot worse than the Star Wars Prequels.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Better editing may have cut the running time of the Star Wars prequels, but it in know way would have made them good films. The problem lies with the scripts. They are bad. Editing can punch up a scene or sequence of scenes, but it isn't going to stop Lucas from delivering some of the worst dialouge and plotting to hit the silver screen in a generation.

I think there is something to the reliance on technology to save a scene or a movie. Rather than fix it in pre-production or production, there is the tendency to just try and clean it up in post. And for Lucas and Rodriguez 90% of the film is now created in post. Much too late in the process to save a film.

You don't seem to understand what I meant by that.

So to repeat myself....

Get it now?