lucasisking
Outstanding Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 32,844
- Reaction score
- 36,717
- Points
- 10,884
- Age
- 50
You're absolutely right. I find it more than a little ironic that characters made entirely out of ones and zeros have much more chemistry than their flesh and blood counterparts, and it dispels the myth that CG has ruined filmmaking in general.
People moan that CG takes all the zest and spontaneity out of filmmaking, which may well be true in the case of Lucas' stiff-as-a-board prequels, but then the same people laud certain all-CG features as some of the best films ever made. So which will it be? Either CG is the death of cinema, or it's simply another tool in a filmmaker's arsenal. As always, it's not what you use but how you use it.
Even if the prequels were made without a hint of CG, they'd still be just as badly acted, poorly written and clumsily executed because of Lucas' daffy ideas and outmoded sensibilities.
It's apples & oranges again though. With something like a Pixar movie, or indeed The Clone Wars series, you're talking about an animation. In that respect, it's to be judged alongside Pinnoccio or Thundercats. Let's not pretend that the voice acting in Clone Wars is any better than the live action performances in the prequels; it clearly isn't.
In a live action film, the ante is upped considerably in terms of acting, believability, and drama. There are things you simply can't get away with in live action, therefore the balance of CG and human interaction is placed under greater scrutiny. The prequels jarred because the human drama got overwhelmed by the pixels- and it's the human drama upon which a live action film is always judged.