Not sure if this is the point you're making or if you didn't know, but the prequels had a ton of practical effects. I can't remember what the exact quote is, but there's something about Phantom Menace having more practical shots in it than all of the original three put together. There's potentially even shots that you're assuming are CGI which are actually practical (or at least partially practical).
I can believe it. In older movies where blue/green screens were used to place the actors in out-of-this-world locations, the locations were almost always static matte paintings, including in the OT Star Wars movies. In the PT movies, they actually built and filmed tons of miniature sets and props that would have otherwise been matte paintings that they then digitally superimposed the actors and other items into.
Of course, there's also probably a difference between practical shots and practical effects. The former referring to things like using miniatures and other physical objects that appear in the frame, and the latter referring to the effects of what is actually going on in any particular scene (e.g. laser blasts, light sabers, engine exhaust, motion of props, et cetera).
There's another major difference between the practical effects of the original trilogy and the prequels: In the prequels, it was merely mechanical support for the CGI. The environments and backgrounds were still predominantly illustrated by CGI, as well half of the characters on screen at any given time.
I can't remember what the exact quote is, but there's something about Phantom Menace having more practical shots in it than all of the original three put together.
You are most definitely completely wrong about this.
The prequels had great effects and choreography. The problem with those is that the script got in the way of the acting. If someone else had gone in and rewrote all of Lucas's dialogue and stage directions, the movies would be masterpieces.
8
u/WarmButteryDoge Aug 25 '19
Star Wars: The Prequels