Is the "prequels look bad and aged and they use a lot of cgi" a meme or people are genuinely that dumb to think that...

It does when everything is a practical effect.

based videogame sensibility forward manchild

Im always baffled when people in 2020 complain about 20 year old cgi.

Are we going to start slagging off ps1 games because they aren't as graphically impressive as modern ones?

I just dont get it

Note you're the first to mention realism. It's not about looking real, it's about looking interesting and immersive. Not sterile generic vydia-tier creatures and environments rendered at GameCube-cutscene quality

>goalposts-on-wheels

That's a retarded analogy. Movie CGI mixed with real life always gets dated over time. There's always exceptions but most of the time it looks bad years later.

I agree it doesn't look bad, but the background is most likely a practical effect. The prequels used a lot of miniatures despite what people believe about it being nothing but CGI.In my opinion, this final scene is the worst-looking CGI in AOTC:
youtu.be/X8SOf0dyu6k

It's understandable how people think it's CGI when Lucas slaps all the fake looking lighting on everything. I was shocked to know the Naboo city was miniatures but when the CGI lighting was put on to make it blend in with the rest of the CGI it looked just as fake.

should have just used IRL insects

youtube.com/watch?v=a5GdMLvvjbs

In all fairness, most of the CGI in the prequels is very well done, unlike recent movies that overload the frame with CGI action to the point where the audience can't even focus on what's happening. The only sequence in the prequels like that is the space battle from the opening of ROTS. Even the battle on Geonosis from AOTC is not as overwhelming and headache-inducing as most Marvel movies.

Not just the lighting but the entire horrid 1080p digital platform which makes even the practicals looks like chink rendered CG plastic

Attached: Practical Set Pieces.webm (1280x544, 1.6M)

LOTR films were made basically in the same period and it's CG, while also being dated, look like they were rendered an entire decade after the CG of the prequels

Because of the CGI lighting. It literally looks like the only real things there are the actors and the lighting on them doesn't match the scene so it instantly looks like they're not really there

That and the actors walk up to what is obviously a very crude matte painting that immediately draws the viewer's eyes to how it lacks depth.

That's not a matte painting, that's all CGI in the background. Lucas only went as far as to show them concept pictures of rooms. Ewan McGregor and staff talked about this in BTS stuff. Haden even said there wasn't a single set he was on that didn't have green screen filming ROTS.

Honestly tho the CG in the LotR rings looked pretty bad, even then. But the proportion of practical effects and maquette work was way larger and made up for it, not to mention the general creative direction of the project being several tiers above Lucas'

wtf is that real?

There's also the part with a couple of frames still rendering the stairs.

I mean yeah, it looks like shit, but it's from 2002. Jar Jar from TPM also looks like shit by today's standards. ROTS looks much, much better than TPM or AOTC.

still not particularly good

I'd even argue that the majority of TPM looks better than AOTC or ROTS

Attached: visual vomit.jpg (1920x824, 308.15K)

Because it literally has nothing to do with the quality of the story being told?