Would the PT have worked with drastically reduced CG?

Polish a turd it's still a turd.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Lucas made two good movies and won the lottery with one of them. The rest of his career he was a collaborator who left the heavy lifting to more capable hands like Spielberg. I'm more and more convinced that the OT succeeded and has been so long-lived in SPITE of him. Not because of him.

Most usual preference I've heard: 1 then 2 then 3.

To the original question, there have been good movies with CG...in this case it may have been brought too far in some cases. Reducing the CG would have removed some of those annoying pieces but a movie always comes down to its plot and how it's executed.

Bottom-line, we all watched it and probably more than once.

James Kenobi 1138 said:

Plus Hayden Christiansen ruined EP2/3. He's just about the worst actor in history. I know he was bound by the script and following direction- I've seen his other movies and he stinks on ice. Simply replacing Hayden would have made the PT better.

Click to expand...

His acting may not have been the problem but his ADR (Automatic Dialog Replacement/re-recorded all the spoken lines) definitely was a big problem.

One thing that makes Phantom Menace amazing compared to the other two: They shot it on film.

cboath said:

It was the story and execution that was the problem. Not the efx.

Click to expand...

A good script can work with mediocre effects. A bad script won´t work even with the most alluring visual beautification. A turd´s a turd. A turd with racing stripes is still a turd ...

The PT would have worked if

- Anakin had been older
- the Midichlorian angle would have been left out
- the political angle would have been toned down

But I have to admit that the PT would not feel as bad if the visuals would have been more cinematographic and less computer game.

Jedi-72 said:

Polish a turd it's still a turd.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Lucas made two good movies and won the lottery with one of them. The rest of his career he was a collaborator who left the heavy lifting to more capable hands like Spielberg. I'm more and more convinced that the OT succeeded and has been so long-lived in SPITE of him. Not because of him.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but in general, I agree that Lucas-as-collaborator has always been a lot better than Lucas-as-dictator.

Although even as a collaborator, he grew kind of bullheaded (apparently) in his later years. Look at what happened with Indy IV, where he really really pushed to do things the way he did them. Spielberg was involved. Frank Darabont (no slouch himself) was involved early on. Lucas wanted what he wanted, and the movie wouldn't get made unless he got that.

Earlier in his career, I think either Lucas was more willing to collaborate, or lacked the leverage to force things to go the way he wanted. Or maybe he just had fewer wacky ideas. Any way you slice it, his early stuff is simply better. So, while I don't think an earlier version of Lucas on his own would've been all that much better, I do think that the issue boils down to being less about CG and more about GL.

The Terminator said:

His acting may not have been the problem but his ADR (Automatic Dialog Replacement/re-recorded all the spoken lines) definitely was a big problem.

Click to expand...

I've been saying this same thing for years now. His acting is fine, but the dialogue coming out of his mouth often doesn't match his facial expressions, body language, demeanor, etc., so to most people that disconnect indicates he can't act.

Zombie_61 said:

I've been saying this same thing for years now. His acting is fine, but the dialogue coming out of his mouth often doesn't match his facial expressions, body language, demeanor, etc., so to most people that disconnect indicates he can't act.

Click to expand...

Gives more meaning to the phrase "Phoning in a performance" :lol