• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

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

Soapbox Killer

Soapbox Killer

Member
Oct 28, 2017
27,047
The 4 Disney films look* the same from a film stand point. Not the art or design but the way the movies look. Same for the OT they all share the same look. The Phantom Menace however doesn't look like any of the other films including the other 2 prequel films. I also think I might like the look it the best out of the 10 films. There's something about the look that I really enjoy but I don't know if it's my headcannon or an actual thing.




*I mean the picture quality I guess but I'm not sure that makes sense.
 
Halbrand

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,612
It's the only one of the prequels shot on film. I think it looks closest to Return of the Jedi.
 
wyndhamprice

wyndhamprice

Member
Oct 27, 2017
237
It was shot on film in the late 90's which does give it a certain quality.

The other two prequels were digital, IIRC.
 
Sephzilla

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,493
Phantom Menace actually used a good amount of models and practical effects, plus it was actually shot on film while Episodes 2 and 3 were filmed digitally. George Lucas didn't go nuts with bluescreen and CGI until the other two prequel movies. Episode 1 has aged a lot better than 2 and 3 in the visuals department.

This is one part of my reasoning for why Phantom Menace is low key the actual best prequel trilogy movie.
 
EvilBoris

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
16,676
Also, it was relatively early in terms of CG, especially for the volume of CG that was used and those slightly dated effects give it a certain look. The designs of the craft and how those show up on screen are not influenced by the abiltiy to make phsyical models of them, so there are lots of more intricate curved forms compared to the more angular designs of the older movies.
 
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
It's a combination of being shot on film and the wonderful aesthetic and color palette.
 
DIE BART DIE

DIE BART DIE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,844
If you're a big proponent of the models used in space scenes in the OT, you could argue that Phantom Menace's space battles look the best in the series. Rather like Jurassic Park's special effects, it's a moment in history that will never happen again: CGI still too immature to be used exclusively for structures and explosions; the refinement of model compositing; and the use of improved film stock before digital colour correction.

The result is better compositing than in the OT, tangible objects reacting to light correctly; real explosions; and the warm look of film. If models are your thing, these scenes certainly look better than the entirely CGI space battles in the other prequels and even the advanced CGI in the sequel trilogy and Rogue One.

 

Ecotic

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,408
It's not just in your head. TPM does have a distinct look to it due to the confluence of events that happened in the late 90's, as others have pointed out. Actual models, use of film, and CGI that was capable, but couldn't be the whole movie.
 
OP
OP
Soapbox Killer

Soapbox Killer

Member
Oct 28, 2017
27,047
DIE BART DIE said:
If you're a big proponent of the models used in space scenes in the OT, you could argue that Phantom Menace's space battles look the best in the series. Rather like Jurassic Park's special effects, it's a moment in history that will never happen again: CGI still too immature to be used exclusively for structures and explosions; the refinement of model compositing; and the use of improved film stock before digital colour correction.

The result is better compositing than in the OT, tangible objects reacting to light correctly; real explosions; and the warm look of film. If models are your thing, these scenes certainly look better than the entirely CGI space battles in the other prequels and even the advanced CGI in the sequel trilogy and Rogue One.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...




Thank You. This makes sense to me.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Sephzilla said:
Phantom Menace actually used a good amount of models and practical effects, plus it was actually shot on film while Episodes 2 and 3 were filmed digitally. George Lucas didn't go nuts with bluescreen and CGI until the other two prequel movies. Episode 1 has aged a lot better than 2 and 3 in the visuals department.

This is one part of my reasoning for why Phantom Menace is low key the actual best prequel trilogy movie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What up.

It's not a good movie by any means, but I watched it at an in-theatre marathon of the entire series and I was surprised by how much fun I had with it. Tonally it feels like a natural evolution of where the series was already heading after Return of the Jedi - it's easy to imagine a version of Phantom Menace being made in 1986 that would be more or less the same movie. It's the sentiment behind the Ewoks but stretched out to two hours.

I think Lucas took the "it's too kiddy" criticism to heart and decided to make 2 and 3 significantly darker, but without fixing the underlying issues with 1 and introducing several more in the process. I always just think of that RLM bit about defenders of Revenge of the Sith bringing up "It's the darkest of the three" as a point for the movie, as if dark inherently = good.
 
BlackGoku03

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,271
There were more practical effects in the film. The film itself was shot on 35mm, giving it a more timeless look.

The digital cameras limited the way shots were composed... I guess it was just too new for them to go nuts, IDK.

And I thought the digital cameras were 1080i, not 1080p?
 

Deleted member 2809

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,478
DIE BART DIE said:
If you're a big proponent of the models used in space scenes in the OT, you could argue that Phantom Menace's space battles look the best in the series. Rather like Jurassic Park's special effects, it's a moment in history that will never happen again: CGI still too immature to be used exclusively for structures and explosions; the refinement of model compositing; and the use of improved film stock before digital colour correction.

The result is better compositing than in the OT, tangible objects reacting to light correctly; real explosions; and the warm look of film. If models are your thing, these scenes certainly look better than the entirely CGI space battles in the other prequels and even the advanced CGI in the sequel trilogy and Rogue One.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Man how could he sound so fucking bored lmao
 
Sephzilla

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,493
Aaron said:
What up.

It's not a good movie by any means, but I watched it at an in-theatre marathon of the entire series and I was surprised by how much fun I had with it. Tonally it feels like a natural evolution of where the series was already heading after Return of the Jedi - it's easy to imagine a version of Phantom Menace being made in 1986 that would be more or less the same movie. It's the sentiment behind the Ewoks but stretched out to two hours.

I think Lucas took the "it's too kiddy" criticism to heart and decided to make 2 and 3 significantly darker, but without fixing the underlying issues with 1 and introducing several more in the process. I always just think of that RLM bit about defenders of Revenge of the Sith bringing up "It's the darkest of the three" as a point for the movie, as if dark inherently = good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yup.

Phantom Menace is still not a good movie but there's definitely an argument for it being the best prequel.
  1. Visually and tonally it still fits with the Original Trilogy films
  2. It has the best lightsaber dual in the prequel trilogy
  3. Music is top notch
  4. It's a fairly stand alone movie, story wise, which is more or less an addition by subtraction scenario since it's not attached to the awful story lines in AotC and RotS.
 
VorpalNonsense

VorpalNonsense

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,641
For the most part (with a few blemishes) I really enjoy the look of Episode 1. Visually it's a lot more pleasing than the cartoony CGI heavy direction Lucas went in his two movies that followed. I wish the visual style of Episode 1 had been carried on.
 
Blader

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,595
DIE BART DIE said:
If you're a big proponent of the models used in space scenes in the OT, you could argue that Phantom Menace's space battles look the best in the series. Rather like Jurassic Park's special effects, it's a moment in history that will never happen again: CGI still too immature to be used exclusively for structures and explosions; the refinement of model compositing; and the use of improved film stock before digital colour correction.

The result is better compositing than in the OT, tangible objects reacting to light correctly; real explosions; and the warm look of film. If models are your thing, these scenes certainly look better than the entirely CGI space battles in the other prequels and even the advanced CGI in the sequel trilogy and Rogue One.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What a shame that it's also the worst space battle in the whole series!
 
RedStep

RedStep

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,649
JB1981 said:
Nah, 2K DI res is 2048×1080. AotC was shot on Sony's F900 which had a master image of less than 1920x1080. When recorded with letterbox it was compressed down further to 1440x1080
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Are you squabbling over 128 lines (1920x1080 vs 2048x1080)? They are identical to the eye.

And I agree on AOTC, it looks like ass. I was just adding that we're still stuck in that (essential) 1080p resolution 17 years later, in most cases.
 
DIE BART DIE

DIE BART DIE

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,844
Aaron said:
What up.

It's not a good movie by any means, but I watched it at an in-theatre marathon of the entire series and I was surprised by how much fun I had with it. Tonally it feels like a natural evolution of where the series was already heading after Return of the Jedi - it's easy to imagine a version of Phantom Menace being made in 1986 that would be more or less the same movie. It's the sentiment behind the Ewoks but stretched out to two hours.

I think Lucas took the "it's too kiddy" criticism to heart and decided to make 2 and 3 significantly darker, but without fixing the underlying issues with 1 and introducing several more in the process. I always just think of that RLM bit about defenders of Revenge of the Sith bringing up "It's the darkest of the three" as a point for the movie, as if dark inherently = good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To me, TPM feels exactly like the kind of film Lucas would've made 16 years after Return of the Jedi. He's forgotten what made the OT great, but the vestiges of Return of the Jedi are definitely there and amplified: the more child friendly gags, the Ewoks being the precursors to the Gungans and adding an extra climactic showdown so you're cutting between 4 simultaneous battles instead of 3. But in those 16 intervening years, he's become a middle aged family man, more political and interested in expanding the minutae of the Star Wars lore.

I think if Lucas had actually made Episode 1 or 7 in 1986, it would feel a lot like Captain EO, which he wrote and partly oversaw. A whole load more Henson puppets (maybe with a Jar Jar esque puppet sidekick), even more complex and impressive 80s practical effects and a creeping edginess to appeal to kids immersed in Transformers and He Man.

 
Rookhelm

Rookhelm

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,684
there was a lot of location shooting for ep 1. I think ep 2 had just a couple location shoots, and none for ep 3.

I agree, though, I love the way TPM looks
 
PanzerKraken

PanzerKraken

Member
Nov 1, 2017
14,968
Episode 1 featured more practical effects and real set locations used. Also as mentioned it was shot on film. Ep2 and 3 featured much more green/blue screen usage, many scenes being completely shot on CG backgrounds and it's aged awfully.

TPM feels like it had much more work put into it and care, the following 2 movies felt rushed with too much reliance on digital. Ep2's entire last half hour is pretty much pure CG
 
smisk

smisk

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,997
There are some good answers in this thread. I've always felt Ep 1 was more boring and has more insufferable characters than the other 2 prequels. But I think there's a good argument to be made in favor of it from an aesthetic standpoint. Might actually revisit it soon.
 
stillwrapped

stillwrapped

Banned
Aug 15, 2018
994
??
Sephzilla said:
Phantom Menace actually used a good amount of models and practical effects, plus it was actually shot on film while Episodes 2 and 3 were filmed digitally. George Lucas didn't go nuts with bluescreen and CGI until the other two prequel movies. Episode 1 has aged a lot better than 2 and 3 in the visuals department.

This is one part of my reasoning for why Phantom Menace is low key the actual best prequel trilogy movie.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not lowkey. It absolutely is the best prequel. No question about it
(still not good)
 
TAJ

TAJ

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
12,446
Old Man Kenobi said:
If I recall correctly Clone Wars was the first movie shot 100% digital or something like that. It's a pretty big jump compared to what was done in EP1.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The first digital features came out in the mid-'90s.
AotC wasn't even the first release shot with that specific camera. At least three movies shot on that model were released before it. And Spy Kids 2 would have beat it to theaters also if Robert Rodríguez hadn't taken a break to shoot Once Upon A Time In Mexico.
 
Masquerade Overture

Masquerade Overture

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,434
As much shit I give The Phantom Menace as well as it being my least favorite Star Wars movie overall, I'll contest it's 100% the best looking film of the franchise.

Partly may be due to nostalgia too. When I saw it in theaters it felt like looking at a window into the new millennium.
 
Dommo

Dommo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,686
Australia
JB1981 said:
They aren't identical when Aotc rendering res is 1440x1080. Watch Aotc and Rots side by side, the resolution difference is obvious
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why would the horizontal pixel count be affected by letterboxing unless I'm missing something? Letterboxing chops out vertical pixel count. AOTC would have had a final resolution of something like 1920x800 as a result which isn't hugely different from many films today.

From what I'm reading, it seems AOTC was indeed shot at 1440x1080 with rectangular pixels that are then stretched out over the horizontal 1920 which would bring its own set of problems.

I imagine along with this slightly lowered resolution, the biggest issue that makes AOTC look so much worse than contemporary digital films that are otherwise being shot at a similar resolution is simply that the film is shot on a more primitive digital camera, where dynamic range isn't quite up to par, bit depth is limited and chroma subsampling is pretty shoddy all of which might be more important than perceivable resolution. And especially for a film so reliant on blue screen, colour information is vital to good keying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.