George Lucas said it best: "A special effect is just a tool..." The problem with today's movie-making(and especially George Lucas) is that people design their movies around the special effects in order to impress the audience into seeing the film. Special effects should be there when they're needed, not looked at as an assumed part of these types of movies. The problem with the prequels is that the creative focus was so heavily based on graphics and visual action, Lucas never bothered to employ other techniques to tell his story. The green screen ends up being the star of the movies. The script is so poorly written that it drags the actors' performances down. This leads to them being overshadowed by the amazing visuals going on around them. While they're standing still and talking about whatever, I find my eyes are drawn away from them to the highly animated CGI backgrounds in almost every scene. These movies are literally a series of computer animated action scenes punctuated by a few live action dialogues. The story is so incoherent, you could reorganize the scenes at random and it would have the same impact.

WTF?!!!There were already Blue Screen back when the original trilogy was shot (hey do you know how they could have pulled together thousand of models for Death Star II Battle without blue screen and Computer Motion Control?) (not to mention the holographic Death Star plans were Primitive CGI at the time)!!!! What's the point of this fuck*n rant?!!!By the way, you can make a CGI looked like a model with depths and way more possibilities than all the things your nostalgia is blinding you about...Prelogy s*cks primarily by its poor dramaturgy and dumb acting direction. Nuff' said

I have not read all the above comments so I apologise if this has been covered but the problem is not GREEN-SCREEN. The problem is that instead of using good writing, ingenuity and creativity George Lucas has gotten used to saying "We'll put some CG in later" thinking that that can replace good writing and acting.

This is an old post but I'm bored. The title should be "the problem with the prequels is not JUST green screen". The main point of John's article is that yes the prequels sucked, but not because of green screen. Uh, yes they did suck because of green screen. But they also sucked because of the screenplay, cast, and direction. Where I work the prequels are playing on tv's all day. The CGI is NOT holding up well. Looks more like a cartoon than live action. I don't blame Lucas at all for trying to push the technology envelope for his baby. Too bad it didn't work out for us fans though.

People aren't really saying that GL made inferior stories because he had access to better tools. They're saying he got distracted by the new, shiny tools and forgot to tell a story. Big difference.

30 bitches attacked the Death Star? Commas are an important tool. Learn to use them.

You're missing a key factor about green screen in this discussion, John: it limits what the camera can do, and constricts actor's performances (witness Terrence Stamp having to act with a stick one day of shooting because Natalie Portman had the day off - can you honestly say greenscreen doesn't matter in circumstances like that?). Part of the charm of the original trilogy is Lucas's so-called "lived in universe" theory of building the world around his actors by way of scuffed-up sets and dirty, real-world feel technology. Just think of any shot in the first trilogy of the Millennium Falcon, of how the camera would move through the set, how the actors would interact with it, how everything onboard the ship looked like it had been spit out of a space slug: none of that is easy with greenscreen and much of it, particularly how the camera moves, is impossible. This "lived-in universe" was totally absent in the prequels, partly because of it's "Golden Age" of the Republic setting, but also because of the sets that were built (many were not) each was only partially built and had to be digitally extended in post. Greenscreen sets often force the director to compose shots in a more static and straightforward manner to facilitate the digital extension, limit his camera movements, and all but eliminates standard coverage. Moreover, it forces director's to shoot exclusively to storyboard. Even the editing process is hamstrung by being made to cut with only your digitally enhanced footage (in other words, you can't swap out a shot at the last minute for a better take, because the better take is a greenscreen). Sure, a great director and cast can compensate for these limitations, but the prequels had neither going for them. Maybe it isn't solely to blame for the prequels (I would pin that on Lucas's financial security, which put him in a position where he was able to choose not to collaborate with anyone in any phase of the storytelling, which he did so well in the trilogy, when he was forced to over schedule and money concerns) but greenscreen didn't do much to help.

I agree that the biggest problem about the prequels was not the green screen. If Lucas had eliminated Jar-Jar, replaced Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson with actors that actually have talent, and had someone who can write good dialogue pen the script, I think the prequels would have been 1000% better and none of us would be complaining about how Lucas raped our childhood. Having said that, I have always felt that the overuse of green screen CGI was one of the weaknesses of the films (not the biggest, but definitely a factor). To me, it took away any semblance of reality to the world. And, yes, I understand this is a fantasy story in a galaxy far, far away on alien plants. But look at the original films--they felt real because many of the effects were practical. Now, I'm not saying that Lucas should have only used practical effects and completely avoided CGI. As John said, there are many things you just can't do without a computer. But when the only real-life objects on the screen are the human characters, you know you've crossed the line and strayed way too far into CGI Land. As with many things in life, balance and moderation is the key.

an example of over using CG... the clone troopers! how come temuera morrison's face was always cg in the third one when they couldve just use the actual actor... and i have to agree with some of the other posts, its not about nostalgia, the sets and some of the aliens looked alive in the original... even when you watch it now... the star destroyers, the death star, all of them looked like they were actually there. someone mentioned that he liked the look of th naboo fighter, well john, phantom menace used alot of models compared to the last 2.. and the pod racers, alot of those hots weren't cg. they actual models! thats why they looked great! (except of course when they would crash, those were cg. but still looked great because it was mixed in with actual models.

I was looking at the photos more or less as a commentary on the "anti-star wars trend" ie: its the number of fans (or friends?) that Lucas has now compared to then. I do agree with you, it was the story that killed it more than the technology, however, just to play devils advocate, if you watch A New Hope, the effects still hold up pretty well after all these years. Put Phantom Menace in your DVD and those groovy CGI affects just don't look so sharp as they did when the film came out. I don't think the effects of the prequels stand up to the "test of time" like the originals do.

I totally agree John. it's like building a house. if the design and workmanship was bad in the first place, you don't blame the hammer and nails, right?

I Agree with you John. It's not the green screen. It was George NOT letting someone else write and direct. If George just came up with the rough draft of the script, and then handed it over to a good writer and director, the movies would have been awesome.

Hey John I think it'd be cool if you could review every single Star Wars movie with the good/bad style of reviewing that you do now.

My 2 cents: Nothing has changed since Return of the Jedi but the visuals. Sorry, but it's the truth.

We all know the problem with the Prequels were the scripts. The story was fine. The execution was horrible. I will say that too much green screen and cgi can take you out of a movie. Especially when you have whole CGI sets. A movie shouldn't depend on CGI. James Cameron Avatar might change this. I will say Peter Jackson in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and King Kong used CGI the way it should be done.

Over react much? I'm just as big of a Star Wars fan as you; maybe bigger. T.I.E.? Twin Ion Engine. Yeah. The photo is still funny. It's just fact. I'm not even sure the photo was intended to be negative. Maybe it was, but maybe it's just an observation. And the way that observation is captured here is pretty funny and thoughtful. I posted this picture last week just as an endcapper to a Friday as something humorous. I don't take it as a slap in GL's face.

John, you're lumping in CGI with green screen. The picture you posted says nothing about CGI. It shows the emptiness and dead-wood-osity of green screen when actors are pitted against it. So it's not the CGI that everyone laments. People love CGI. It's the fact that actors were given wooden dialogue and told to say it to a green tennis ball inside a green room. The only ones competent enough to rise above George's lackadaisical directing and poor script were the seasoned British actors, as usual. They're used to making ham-handed dialogue sound like Shakespeare. It's in their blood. Haydensen, Portman and Samuel L. Jackson were way out of their depth.

I never thought I would live to see a day with a post like this one. I can understand if someone said the CG Jabba in the New Hope update doesn't match the puppet Jabba in Return Of The Jedi... ...but the CG Jabba in Phantom Menace looks more like ROTJ Jabba. So I saw that as an improvement not as a distraction. Yes, CG Yoda in the prequels looks great. Does it steal from the puppet in Empire? Not for me. I look it as Yoda is older, maybe more senile (?) in Empire (indeed-ROTJ he "died" of old age!) I can understand the complaints about Jar Jar. One character out of the whole deal. A character who fades back into the shadows and who does a significant act which causes the entire galaxy to be under the control of the Emperor! But other characters have pointed out his flaws, so I didn't have much of a serious problem with Jar Jar and his "Messas" babble, although I'll crack a joke as much as the next person. Yeah, the Diner in Clones seemed out of place and self indulgent. Yes, Yoda embarrassing Obi Wan in front of Padawans er, Younglings, made some cringe. Some didn't care for Emo Akakin. But this is the first time I ever heard that people thought the problem(s) with the prequels was the FX/Green screen Maybe this is a new thing...? Maybe I'm out of the loop? Oh, I know. I just never paid attention to these knuckleheads. In fact, I thought Revenge Of The Sith was the best FX I seen in a film that year. I could understand if folks had a problem with the actors, the dialog, Darth Vader screaming "Noooooooo!" I get it it. Alright? But the FX are a problem with the prequels? Those are the best thing about the prequels! I never felt they "took away" from the previous films. If anything soured the milk CG wise it was that animated abomination known as the "Marionette" Clone Wars- but that is another ballgame. So I'll use another movie as an example here. Titanic. I have failed to understand what the masses hate about the FX and production design regarding the oscar winning film. Film is subjective; or it is supposed to be. There were some people out there who thought it should not have been an Oscar winner. Fair enough. Some people hated the soap opera story. Fair enough. Some hated the dialog. Fair enough. Some hate Celine Dion. I don't know why, but fair enough. But then a line is crossed- I will hear "the production design and FX were "awful" because this was an "awful" film. The line is crossed, I say, because this is a herd mentality. I am always stunned when I hear it. Nothing is given to back it up. Film is subjective, that's what I want to tell myself. But when I see behind the scenes stuff and see sets built, replicas of what the sunken ship was really like based upon scientific research and observation and I hear the moans and laments of those who think the film is horrid because of it. I am so out of the loop. So here I come across John's post/rant. I'm not sure the kinds of kooks he's been hearing it from, but while I was writing this I thought about Titantic...and the herd mentality. I look at that picture provided as "evidence" of what's wrong with the Star Wars prequels. It proves nothing. Lucas is in a room full of models and props. I hate to break the news to some, but models and production design is still used from time to time, just not always as much as it used to be. By the way... What's the difference between green screen....and blue screen? Anyone remember "blue screen"? Boy, am I out of the loop.

Stars Wars movies are the greatest movies ever? Return of the Jedi is not good. In the first trilogy we get 2/3 good movies. Revenge of the Sith is the only good movie out of the second trilogy. So, thats 1/3. Star Wars is 3/6 and its the greatest series? I think A New Hope and Empire are the only really great movies here, the rest are riding the wave of these two.

John I agree with you in part but I'm not sure that its the full argument. I think its also stating that the effects are OVER-USED. I totally agree that Yoda looks and acts a better part now that he is completely CG. Unfortunately I get tired of seeing an entire film with fake backgrounds, shitty looking cities and stupid lightsabre fight scenes on lava...Yes I get that its written into a pretty shit story but it also LOOKED like shit. There's not enough substance with CG, we can pick out the tiniest flaws and the scene will mean less to us as an audience. The fact that these things were actually created and existed physically made you believe in the world all that more.

In as far as the effects themselves, the CGI is superior in scenes likes the podrace and so on, but having to act surrounded by just green screens and tennis balls on poles to represent eyelines is different. I think the actors had a hard time in this environment, not being able to immerse themselves in tangible surroundings (not saying a movie set isnt fake but green screen is worse). I remember seeing or reading Ewan McGregor complain about this. However the biggest problem I think is that Lucas directed them all himself, and none of the prequel actors had Harrison Ford's attitiude when it came to adapting the crap dialogue into something sayable.

Who can blame Lucas for not taking advantage of the most current technology and special effects? No one in his position would step back 30 years for nostalgia's sake. If he had, you know people would've ranted on about how out-of-touch and obsolete he was. But part of the originals' charm was definitely the campiness of some of the low-budget costumes and sets. That rubber and plastic stuff he used to flesh out some of the characters and backgrounds is classic. Some of those things weren't even current for the 70's style of effects, but all of it came together to make Star Wars the icon it is today. I think a little less CGI would've been okay, but I agree that all of that had nothing to do with the actual review and quality of the new movies.

Always took the knock on the green screened prequels as one in reference to the reliance on technology to flesh out those movies over the most powerful weapon in a movie's arsenal - a top notch writer.

I'm going to disagree a bit as well. But, did anything look better in the originals? Yes, actually. In the originals, the idea was to at least try to make things look real, and quite a bit of the CGI films are practically over the edge into being a totally animated movie that a person sticks their head in once in a while.

so would it be any different if its a blue screen??? lolz

All of the Star Wars movies were well made. It is remarkable that they tie well together. However, I don't think Star Wars is perfect. I don't like some of the things people complain about either. I can count on one hand how many movies I still like now, as an adult, that I loved as a kid. I think some of the improvements were necessary, and I think a few were not. I don't need to elaborate. Overall the story, the impact of the music, film making, model making, fx technology, ultimately produced some great films. Many films today owe their ass to to Star Wars. I would like to see the story continued after, Return of the Jedi or movies about the Old Republic. I think it would also be great to see movies with stories of Han Solo, Luke and Leia between, Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope. I would like to see those stories made as mini-series movies. How about Star Wars battles 360 on History Channel?

The Problems with the Prequels is that George Lucas never heard the word NO enough.

lol. great pics. i bet the 2005 one is a clone too.

John - Usually I agree with your SW rants, as I am of the same OT generation as you, but not this time! Did green-screen directly make the prequels bad? Of course not, but what the advancements in technology (represented by "green-screen") allowed was for Lucas (and others) to write whatever they wanted - not having to worry about how they'd pull it off. My contention is that this "freedom" gave him TOO MUCH room resulting in the poor prequel films (yes all three of them). The films were heavy on graphics and effects and thin on character development and story execution. Can't you just see him? "Ooooh! I can make this and that and 3 of these...and 1000 of those...and a planet with these and another like this..." And on and on he went, instead of spending time on writing tolerable dialogue or interesting plot details. In the end, it's Lucas' fault and not technology's. The advancements since 1983 allowed Lucas to do whatever he wanted. As it turns out, the limitations he faced back in the day, are what helped to keep the OT somewhat grounded. It's not about all the fancy robots and aliens you can make...nor their home planets and environments. That's all secondary crap. It's about characters and their relationships. It's THAT which became secondary to all the "cool" ships and aliens and planets and robots that Lucas could dream up.

The writing of the prequals sucked. The film looked great but the screenplays sucked. So Bad movies.

The polished look, due to green screen or not, is one of the things that realy bugged me about the films. And I liked them a lot especially the second two. The first ones were had a grittier fell that made the movies seem mor real to me.

Also, fx are the tools to enhance the director's vision, not meant to replace the palate entirely.

Let's be honest, the CGI wasn't the only thing wrong with the prequels. But it was A KEY PROBLEM. I think it's fair to say that if Uncle George put as much thought into the script and the story as he did into the special effects, we would have a different set of movies. To quote Dr. Malcolm from Jurassic Park, in regards to the FX, Lucas and Co. "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." I think Lucas was so determined to make the prequels his special effects opus, he was blinded by the possibilities and he had no restraints, which would have helped in this case. I love special fx as much as the next guy, and true a lot of scenes would have been impossible otherwise, but many scenes were over the top. I mean, can you give me a good reason why there was not a single live action clone trooper? Simply put, the blitzkrieg of special fx (I feel), served as distraction to Lucas and became the focus of the movies. So instead of seeing the compelling back story to the dysfunctional Skywalker family saga, we got a couple bitchy kids, crap dialogue, and an occasional whiff of something awesome.

John your post with the trailer for the upcoming Star Wars game really says it all. It's a sad commentary on what could have been. More to the point, what really makes me angry is that it really illustrates WHAT COULD BE, BUT WILL NEVER MANIFEST. That's the really tragedy, that old fat neck won't look at that trailer and tell that studio to just make the whole damn movie.

Im not gonna say green screen is the only reason I didnt like the prequels as much, but it was defintally a reason. I personally think they overdid it with the green screen. It seemed like there was no sets and it was all fake. (I know there were sets, im just saying it seemed like that) The actors had to of been bored making those movies.

I agree the tech isn't the biggest problem. There were many a gorgeous shot in the prequels. However I do think CGI was horribly overused, and the puppets/props still win for looks and believability. I didn't like prequel Yoda at all, and while CGI R2 wasn't quite as bad...I could still tell everytime he was CGI. Jar Jar on the other hand was an incredibly impressive bit of CGI. So there's a place for the green screen certainly. I'm a big Henson fan. So I losing that mix was a big let down for me. There was a grit factor missing which I always found a big part of the charm of Star Wars. Lot of the prequel sets were just too clean.