Why does Star Wars Episode 1 look different from the other 9 films?

Oct 25, 2017
9,014
#52
Episode 1 just had a good aesthetic in general,
Naboo is my favorite planet in the franchise

Great element was that even super fantastical locations had actual locations and sets



 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
3,721
#55
I dunno I think this is kind of recent revisionist history, I recall very much that one of the main criticisms of TPM past the Jar-Jar thing and the wooden acting was that the film looked too shiny/polished and not enough like the OT circa 1999/early 2000s.

If anything I think the sequel trilogy for better or worse gets the "used sci-fi" Star Wars look right much better. For better or worse (it's not really expanding the look of the saga much). The tone and look of the ST is much more in line with the OT.

But I do agree somewhat that TPM is probably the easiest on the eyes of the prequels. It was shot on film and Attack of the Clones effects in particular seemed badly rushed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,560
#56
I've always liked PM the best of the prequels even with some of its giant glaring weaknesses. It's a gorgeous film most of the time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,168
#58
Episode 1 was shot in film and was almost entirely miniatures. Although 2 and 3 also had heavy miniature work, they were shot digitally which gave them a different texture and feel.

The Disney movies use film but are also heavily digital, so it also gives a different feel.
 
Oct 27, 2017
704
#61
Episode 1 was shot in film and was almost entirely miniatures. Although 2 and 3 also had heavy miniature work, they were shot digitally which gave them a different texture and feel.

The Disney movies use film but are also heavily digital, so it also gives a different feel.
Rogue One was shot digitally too, same with Solo. I'm willing to believe that early digital films like AOTC had some downsides compared to film, but nowadays there's really no difference, since video can be processed in a way to replicate pretty much any film stock.