So I just saw the commercial on TV. From the 45 seconds I saw of it, I'd say it looks highly homosexual.

I mean, wtf with the animation. Yeah starwars is kid friendly, but lets not dumb it down here. The least they could have done is made some animation on par with Advent Children or something.. then I might actually bother to watch it. Lucas is headed in a severe downward spiral when it comes to films.

I don't think I'll see it. The animation looks crappy. Why would they stylize something off of something that used cheap animation to begin with. It's not expressive, it's just ugly. My guess- it'll be the embodiment of everything fans hated about the NT.

If I become the crazy vet who kills George Lucas instead of my wife and parents, do you think I will get off the hook?

You just might.

IMO, The animation style in 'The Clone Wars" TV series looks better than what I have seen in trailers for the movie.

One episode of the TV series (which follows the film) was shown to critics and is getting really good reviews though. Which is a lot for Star Wars.

The LA Times said that the general feeling under critics is that it might be better than the Live Action Prequels:



LA Times

More reviews:



Live Feed



Premium Hollywood



Deseret News

I remain casually skeptical.

I don't have any positive expectations about anything contrived by George Lucas anymore.

Just saw the trailer.

Looks mince.

I want to see it. I liked the trailer.

*waits for sniper shot to the head*

I think Clone Wars looks good, I like the style they chose for the animation

Star Wars: Because You'll Still Pay to See It

I wish they animated it instead of doing 3d.

Not I, it looks like ****.

It seems like Clone Wars tries to mimic the look of the animated series while bringing it to 3D. The end product, I think, is an ugly bastardization of the two types of animation. If they want to take in the look of the traditionally hand-drawn style of the cartoon miniseries, I just can't help believe it would have been best that they should have just went with old-fashioned drawing of scene to scene. Today's cinema is so damn over-saturated with CGI productions that a major traditionally-animated film would not only stand out but be a somewhat refreshing sight these days.

Seriously, what if this movie went with something similar to the original Clone Wars animated series? But instead, it significantly bumped up the production quality, worked on the details, sharpen up the animations, and added the helping of the artistic touch. That would be t*ts. Way cooler than generic CGI movie #23,321. It's weird and disappointing how underwhelming the visuals are from a studio that specializes so much with CGI. I guess it boils down to story and characters...haha good luck.

What's that supposed to mean? It's entirely rendered. Everything is rendered at HD or higher.

I agree all the way. What's more, CGI tends to age faster than traditional animation.

I'm glad they made the distinction of "TV series" otherwise I know several fully CG items that are A LOT better, starting with FF:TSW and ending with MS IGLOO 2.

It seems like the logical turn for Lucas; he had nearly eliminated real sets in favor of CG worlds, and now he's eliminating the presence of live-action acting with CG characters.

I probably won't go see it--mainly because I wasn't all that happy with Episode III. I might rent it or borrow it from someone when it gets released on DVD, but I don't think I'll pay $8.50 to see it in theaters.

That's what pissed me off about the new movies. After episode 1 everything was green screen. It ruined the whole point of starwars. The props and sets made those movies as cool as they were, once you throw CG in there it just ruins everything. At that rate I'd rather just play a SW video game, then feel like I'm watching a giant cutscene.

I want to go see it even though it looks like a cheesy franchise product, just to recapture some of that old starwarsy feel. But I'll probably forget to since I'm not really excited about it or anything.

I don't get the hate for CGI. I mean, It's Star Wars. What are they supposed to do? Go on location to outer space?



Rewatch the original Star Wars films. A lot of the miniatures work and poor-man's-process stuff looks really fake. Special Edition took a lot of flak (Han shot first! :mad:) but a lot of the asthetic changes were huge improvements.

If you don't like the style of the animation, I guess that's a valid complaint.

Wait, what..

some of the special edition changes looked great. Many, however, just sucked.

I recently rewatched the originals and I missed some things the special edition had(hoth monster thing) but even with the number of great decisions there were just as many, if not more, terrible ones(ANH han & jaba, ROTJ musical).

The problem I have with the close wars is not the cgi (though it does look rather silly) it's the "cheesy franchise product" thing.
It's that once again we have another movie trying to add all kinds of tiny little pointless details to a story that was great the way it was.

I would jump to see a star wars movie that did not feature ANY characters from the first three movies or anyone related to any of those characters or anyone who had ever seen or heard of those characters.

Lucas did good when he created this huge universe the trouble is that he's got he head stuck so far up vader's *** that he can't see anything outside this one storyline.

This is one reason I love Kotor because they gave us new characters, new places, just stuff that's new.

You're right. Lucas says that "Star Wars is the story of Anakin Skywalker," which is funny, because when I was a kid I thought it was about Luke Skywalker.

Lucas doesn't really know what he's talking about. Not even in his own story. His own movies I don't consider canon. I don't care if he made it up to begin with, they suck and don't make sense so they aren't canon.

I could see where he was coming from it they didn't case a total douche for Anakin.

It's an imaginary universe. Who cares about what's canon.

Lucas did however write the original story with Anakin in mind as the main character. He decided to make what was more or less the second half of the story when he started out with filming. So yeah, of course the OT was about Luke, and how he redeemed his father. The greater story however, was about Anakin.

I'm curious, is it considered alright in the OP to call Clone Wars homosexual because it can be infered that he is mocking people who might say "gay" to negatively describe something? I'm just surprised because normally the homophobic-phobics chime in to protest comments like that within a few posts.

This is the only Clone Wars animation I will acknowledge.

It's so stiff, unnatural and inexpressive. The advantage to animation is to make characters more expressive. Panning over retarded drawings of people constantly in action figure poses is just stupid.

Which animation are you talking about? You didn't just insult Samurai Jack, did you?

See, and I didn't care for the original Clone Wars animation that much. Well, the first part was alright, but the second part... with the big blue ogre people... bleh.

To me the animation style seemed similar to Batman: The Animated Series. Very simple yet stylistic.

I'm not a huge fan of either style but the rest of both series had enough redeaming qualities that I still like them.

This new movie is fine for what it is.

I never really understood why people like Samurai Jack's style so much...

I wonder how much of a ****fit people would throw if they did anime starwars.

I think it's a bad choice to describe things you feel are stupid or tacky as "homosexual" on a forum with a gay admin. That is not what that word means.

You're on my watch list.

It got all the way to post #36 before that happened.

I personally felt that the original animation seemed sort of cheap and not really fitting given the setting and cashflow behind it.

It works for Samurai Jack, I guess, but SW isn't Samurai Jack. I think I could also argue that Samurai Jack wasn't good because of it's animation style...which resembles the practically generic western cartoon clichedness that I stopped caring about when Cartoon Network first started.

I think it sort of felt like, lets say, taking a high budget anime franchise like Gundam or Macross and instead of having an utterly massive budget and displaying in full on beautiful HD (With some pretty good and presumably high budget CGI sequences in Macross F's case), they decided to animate it like Shin-Chan. Just kinda... :/

Maybe I'm just spoiled by relatively high budget anime animation styles and character designs...from the early/mid 80s.


(Zeta Gundam, 1985)

To say nothing of newer animation.


(Zeta Gundam movies, 2005/6)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/Cmd598/gundam/screencaps/00/ep06/snapshot20071110123115.jpg
(Gundam 00, 2007/8)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/Cmd598/Macross/snapshot20080724001415.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/Cmd598/Macross/foldbomb4.jpg
(Macross Frontier, 2008)

tl;dr - I like things to look more like what they're supposed to be than arguably cheap caricatures.



Depends on if they "get it" or not, since execs have a tendency to not "get" things, I forsee a horror that is sticking a ton of cliches that don't belong outside of a harem anime or DBZ and sticking them in the SW universe because "lol anime" rather than be logical about it and try to emulate animation like the above images.

Some people have a serious problem with the traditionally cheap style of anime no matter what the story but I think most people forgive the cheap animation when the story is good. When it comes to an established franchise, with high production values, I think the average fan thinks anime adaptations are cash ins. I would like to add that even many "cheaply" animated cartoons feature interesting effects not usually seen in cartoons. Still, the stick figure anime style seems cheap sometimes, and I like certain anime.



Well, I thought it could be because some might have thought he was mocking those that would use that terminology for that purpose. Personally, I find the choice of words more offensive than if he had used "gay". To me it seems like "gay" has already sort of been hijacked and misused so it seems less offensive to me but to call something "homosexual" with a deragatory implication seems even worse. It's like, "oh, you don't like it when I say gay? Okay, it's homersexual!"

Sounds pretty ghey if you ask me.