|Just because it looks fake, don't assume it's intentional. Sometimes it is (Sky Captain)
and sometimes it's not (SW prequels)
I'd disagree with that statement. SW prequels have their problems, but effects are not one of them. For what it's worth, the prequels look a hell of a lot more real, if that's possible for a film like the prequels, than Sky Captain did. Then again, fantasy and sci-fi films that require a lot of effects will never looks 100% completely real. LOTR didn't, prequels didn't, Matrix trilogy didn't, etc, etc. Not just because of the out of this world aspects of these films, but also because of the reliance on CG. There's just no way to make those kinds of movies nowadays for a reasonable price, unless a Lucas was willing to foot a bill of 250+ million dollars for each film, and perhaps even more than that. Because that's what it would have cost to do it the way some of you wanted it done.
But enough of that. I'm so damn sick and tired of whining about CG that it's enough to make a dog vomit.
King Kong would be of more interest to me than LOTR. The only problem is I was never that excited about a Kong remake. I was originally more excited about LOTR, but found out that it just wasn't my cup of tea. But I'll definitely check it out.
|I'd also give credit to their production
designer (for actually building sets instead of hanging greenscreens)
This argument doesn't hold water, and never really has. There were more sets and more miniatures used in the prequels than were used in the entire original trilogy combined according to ILM and Lucas. You can still argue whether they used too much CG, but not everything was a greenscreen. It still amazes me to this day how so many people mistake sets in the prequels for CG, and CG for sets or miniatures. It just goes to show that the vast majority couldn't tell the difference except when it was obvious, like that used in a CG character.