Optimus Metallus wrote:No, I have no idea how expensive real sets are to make, but given how many movies are filmed using real sets as opposed to being almost completely CGI green screen creations (which includes films set in deserts, which Hollywood has been doing for DECADES), my impression is that the CGI is what's truly expensive. For instance, I heard that they had to limit their use of the Hulk in the Avengers due to how expensive it was, and that was just for that one character.
First, most movies take place on Earth, so its a lot easier to find an appropriate location for the film. Star Wars on the other hand is Sci-Fi. Even Fantasy movies are easier, because those still predominately take place in terrestrial envoronments. Second of all, CGI just keeps getting cheaper. The Prequel Trilogy and Avatar both demonstrated that CGI is cost effective now, whereas that wasn't always the case.
Also, I was talking about sets, not creatures. Hulk is therefore a null analogy. That said, they still were able to shoot all sorts of CG creatures and characters like Yoda. I won't say it was a good idea, but mostly because CG Yoda failed to sell the sheer age of the character. Getting into swordfights didn't help that, though.
And why exactly would Revenge of the Sith even have to end on a molten lava planet? There is nothing about the movie which required that they be fighting around lava. So Anakin ends up burned up at the end? Harvey Dent ended up burned up badly in The Dark Knight, and yet somehow that didn't require a CGI set or for the Joker to transport Dent to Mustifar.
Nothing requires it to end there, but that doesn't mean it didn't add a lot of atmosphere to the movie's climax. We could go all day with the "is this necessary" game, but at the end of the day you would have a completely different movie and cinematic experience if all those proposed changes were made. Its a red herring argument, so you can just cut it out right now.
Also, there is a lot of CGI used in the Batman films that you just don't realize are there. For instance, Two Face's scars were entirely done with CGI, not makeup. Surprised the hell out of me, but the behind the scenes footage doesn't lie. Nolan does a good job of making the effects inconspicuous. I actually wouldn't be surprised if that explosion
was enhanced with CGI effects work.
Point is, calling the Prequels "CGI porn" is simply over the top whining. Star Wars is an alien universe, and that's something that CG depicts very well and cost effectively. Disney/Lucasfilm isn't going to break their budget making sets for everything when they can invest in a few greenscreens and it make most of it look just as good.
You're accusing me of whining?
Yes. Stop and ask yourself what parts of my argument you failed to address. Hint: everything.
You're the one who unleashed this entire diatribe based off a two-word throw-away comment. THAT is over the top whining. And you say that as if Hollywood hasn't already been creating alien environments using real sets for decades. It's suddenly not cost effective or feasible to do what they did back in 1977, 1980, and 1983? Really?
Ask Lucas himself why he didn't do the PT sooner. He has always stated that the effects of the time weren't up to the task of depicting the worlds he envisioned. He's a best selling filmmaker, an innovator in special effects... and he waited until CGI was up to the task before shooting his dream movies. Like those movies or not, do you really expect people to take your word over his?
But here's why you aren't getting a single thing I'm saying. CGI is
more cost effective, easier to work with, and can create certain environments that physical sets cannot. All three of these are reasons they
will be used in future Star Wars movies, and most likely used
a lot. Get used to it, or stop watching these movies. (Oh, by the way, I probably won't be seeing the movie either. Just wanted to point that out. Its just not because I hate CGI)
A lot of the time the story doesn't require computer trickery. Lucas just uses it because he's obsessed with CGI. That and he hates filming on location.
Stop and ask yourself why Lucas has these preferences (assuming he does and you aren't just projecting your hatred of the man onto the man himself). That's all I fucking ask. Stop and put yourself into the shoes of a blockbuster filmmaker and really ask yourself whether you would like to shoot in front of a greenscreen, or get sand in your shoes in 150 degree weather in the middle of Africa.
Avatar's it's own thing, and it was necessary as the protagonist is himself a CGI character for the majority of the film. That's a far cry from a series of films where the protagonists are not CGI characters, but instead actual flesh-and-blood actors. It's particularly silly when you have the Clone Troopers as CGI creations. We had actual actors in actual costumes playing the Storm Troopers in the OT. How was that possible then but it was suddenly impossible to have real extras in costume? At least Avatar didn't CGI the human soldiers.
Maybe its because you aren't going to find an army of one million identical men to be your extras?
Come on. Your objections are just fucking stupid, and AOTC is the one Star Wars movie I actually loathe.
Again, if it's the practical choice, then why isn't EVERY movie made entirely on green screen sets? Even recent sci-fi movies have plenty of real sets as opposed to entirely CGI sets on greenscreen. Your "want their movies made with fairy dust and the wishes of children made upon the midnight stars" is particularly retarded, given that movies have been made without CGI for decades. You talk as if *gasp* no one has ever shot on location or ever built an actual set before. Perish the thought! Hollywood should stick to doing what they've been doing since the early days of film and use green-screen CGI sets. Actual constructed sets which actors act in? They're the stuff of myth and legend, not reality!
And sticking to tradition is good, no matter how much money we could be saving or how much easier the new technology is to work with!
Buddy, you just don't have an argument.
I was going to ask you to outline the logic that brought you to this conclusion, but I'd guess that it would be utter gibberish. 
