>>2954 >It defined the child friendly feel that George Lucas had been bringing the series to that point. which Disney sadly brought again. I didn´t know why but I had the sense that if the new trilogy was animated, I would have absolutely considered that they would serve as typical animated Disney films for some reason with its formulas and such. George Lucas way to define its child friendly feel brings something different but they weren´t that entertaining either.
>There actually was a lot of effort put into it (Lightsabers were actually made of real chromium pressed to rubber, a process that was invented for the film for example.) wow, that detail shows a lot of care behind the process. I didn´t know that.
>When I revisited after watching the last jedi I was suprised how well it handled jumping between so many characters and worlds compared to how that film struggled with the even less. that could explain the lack of action scenes taking that into account. It´s almost like they would make a semirealistic production by going into that direction. Now, that you comapre both film, when I watched the 3rd after checking the 7th back in the day, they were pretty different in style, how on was static and slow while the other wanted to appeal the wider audience with a greater weapon that wasn´t seen before.
>I've seen people say the CGI looks better than some modern films now, something that I agree with 1000% with the space battle and planetary backgrounds though I would say is a bit more cautious to go that far at some other points it actually depends on how you use the technology that you have. I have even seen that in music. Krautrock and electronic bands from the 70s (Tangerine Dream for example) show more class and haunting music with the technology from back then than today´s tech....so it´s no surprising that one would end up with those thoughts. It´s not a matter of tools but using them properly (the edit thread is coming up to my mind)
>one thing I've heard from some armchair film critics is that George Lucas mistake with CGI was that he didn't often use the low light dark settings to hind the contrast between the CGI and the real which is the norm for most films. I even saw a few say that this maybe starting to feel a breath of fresh air (at least when it isn't too cartoony) to some after all the dark settings and dark ambients we gotten so used to now. huh interesting. Probably they have realized about that because using CGI has become really vicious and repetitive and he didn´t care about that aspect. Probably that aspect could help to synchronize them better or use their dark setting properly. And even using the low light, there are productions that look cartoonish as hell with that technique. >I would totally place it at number 4 (rough one if the first two acts were as good as the 3rd). Rough One was a good action film at what it does in that last third and pretty rampant on action. It´s the least Disney-esque film from the new ones but yeah, I would place the 3rd one among/near the original trilogy as well...
