Get some cool drag & drop VFX here! ► www.famefocus.com/go/getvfx/ ◄
Don't forget to visit OUR SHOP here! ► fame-focus-vfx.creator-spring... ◄
Have you ever wondered why people hate the Star Wars prequel trilogy more than the sequel trilogy? or why (despite some pretty incredible advances) the Visual FX were so heavily criticized?
Like the music in this video? I made it!
Support me by getting it on any of these sites :P
Get it on iTunes: ► apple.co/2ENGfu9 ◄
Listen on Spotify: ► spoti.fi/3boTfCl ◄
Buy it on Amazon: ► amzn.to/2QVJZfk ◄
Well, we think the Star Wars films (at least the prequels) should have avoided using digital effects altogether! and this is why!
Firstly, Practical Effects are limited to the physical world and therefore they force filmmakers to work within their constraints.
For example, In the original trilogy, you couldn't put a tremendous number of ships in one shot because each one had to be a detailed miniature model that was filmed in front of a blue screen by a motion control camera.
Then each motion control shot was then reprinted using an optical printer and filters to change the blue screen background into a black background to create a foreground matte that (when combined with the original shot) isolated the model so that it could be projected along with all the other models into the optical printer and composited into the final shot and you couldn't have extended shots of actors riding imaginary beasts.
Because the only way to achieve this was by building miniature puppets and animating them frame by frame, a process known as stop-motion animation which could easily take up to an hour to produce just one second of stop-motion film. This meant that the original trilogy's screenplay had to be written within the confines of what was physically and economically possible to produce using visual effects.
Nowadays almost anything you can imagine (no matter how crazy) can be achieved using digital effects.
If you want an absolutely insane number of ships in the sky, firing laser cannons and exploding, you got them and you want an army to be riding space horses on the top of one of those ships, you got it too!
But bigger isn't always better (especially when concerning visual effects) and with nothing to limit the imagination, things can go from believable to ridiculous, very quickly!
The second reason is that practical effects ARE real and Digital Effects only LOOK real. The original trilogy has its own unique look and feel.
The puppets, miniatures, and matte paintings may seem dated now, but because they are real things in front of the camera, as an audience, we can still accept them as real even though they aren't completely convincing. Just like stop-motion animation may seem jerky and crude, but because we know it's a real model being manipulated, it doesn't feel fake. Digital effects can look a lot more realistic than practical effects, but, if they are just slightly off, if the lighting is a little wrong, if the physics aren't quite right, the eyelines don't line up, or the interactions with the actors are unconvincing, the whole illusion is completely broken and as an audience, we feel cheated and so we disconnect.
But with practical effects, it's different. Take Luke's Landspeeder for example, this effect was achieved using two different Landspeeders, one, was mounted on a rotating crane arm and the other was mounted on a small three-wheeler car. They then mounted mirrors underneath to conceal the wheels and reflect the desert sand back at the camera. But you notice over the rough desert terrain that it's bouncing on its wheels even if you can't see them. And when on the crane arm, even with the camera movement, you can tell the car is rotating rather than just going forward.
But even though these things break the illusion, we know they are real and so don't feel cheated and therefore, remain connected. The final and perhaps most interesting reason is the visual timeline. When you look back through "Behind the Scenes" footage of Star Wars you can see a definite difference between then and now, Technology has advanced, images are clearer and more defined, colors are more vibrant, and lighting is more dynamic.
(...)
#starwars #vfx #makingof #behindthescenes #bts #movie #film #filmmaking #moviescene #visualeffects #practicaleffects #starwarsvfx #vfxartistsreact #starwarstheory #starwarstrailer #starwarsvfxeditor #starwarsvfxbreakdown #vfxbreakdown #starwarsmovies #starwarssaga #georgelucas #videooftheday #trending
The above ActionVFX link contains a Special Fame Focus Discount. We also earn an affiliate percentage of each purchase.
Read more here: www.famefocus.com
Follow us on Twitter: / focusfame
As a CGI character Jar Jar was an incredible advance. Its textures and gestures still look amazing, not dated at all when compared with some CGI characters of present days. The prequels allowed much of the effects that we now see as normal. The prequels trying and innovating is what paved the way for films such as Avengers, etc.
The gungans in general are a fantastically well designed alien species. Sadly the direction and writing has made them one of the most loathed film characters, to no fault of the actors. They were great but they were given bad instructions by Lucas. Doesn't matter how well the character model is made and performed if you're given a task that annoys the audience.
a*
@@FarseerAnimation "yousa in bad doodoo" -george lucas 2023
I wasn't born in 60s so never watched og starwars trilogy Instead i went on tmdb and saw it in sequence from phantom menace to end Jar jar was a good character which was just like johnny english who made errors and thkse errors turned out useful
The Phantom Menace actually had quite a lot of practical model and miniature effects.
All three Prequels had.
I think one of the benefits of the limits to how many ships you can have in a scene, vs. the limitless possibilities of CG, is you also can see how impractical it would be for all those imperial star destroyers to be there together, so close. No way that none of those are bumping into another one...
I don't know if I would expect the prequels to look older, but I don't expect the technology in them to look more advanced.
Wait wait wait. The first sentence. Completely wrong.
I had to do a double take to make sure I had understood correctly 😅
@@FerusLywin hahaha same 😂
Right?!😂 no one likes the sequel trilogy. NO ONE. Atleast the prequels have some fans. (Like me) 😂
Confirm, sequel sucks, prequel is like wine feels better as time goes on
Agreed. Visually the sequel trilogy did a great job. From a writing viewpoint...awful.
The VFX in the Prequels is still far better than the writing in the Sequels.
The prequels are also infamously bad writing wise.
@@naramoro i wouldn't agree on that, the story over 3 movies was written amazingly. not executed well by lucas, *insert sand meme here*, but it was a great, coherent story that expanded the universe in interesting ways and featured uniqe and interested characters. what did the sequels achieve?
the writing in the prequels is borderline incoherent lol
@@yahmzmusic2339 okay but would you argue it's worse than the sequels?
@@Dud079 why can't I think they're both awful lol
Mixing practical with digital is the way to go.
Agreed!
There are some creatures in episode 8 and 9 that are obvious puppets and it would be better if they are CGI characters. Practical for sae of being practical doesn't mean better. Also, it's all about scripts and storytelling, and they are terrible recently
You can include 7 is this comment. Several puppets in 7 scream "I'm a puppet, not CGI, please love me"
@@Isenlyn true, but especially in ep 8 in Canto bight and ep 9 a lot of times
It's Star Wars, you know what the hardcore fans are like. "Practical for the sake of being practical" is an obvious play to appeal to them. I mean, they scanned the original models for the holochess monsters and had them stop-motion animated once more. Which makes zero sense, since these are creatures in a digital board game, it makes all the sense in the world for them to be CGI.
the prequels may look polished in terms of CGI but the times were also a prosperous time in the galaxy and people were better off at least in the inner systems but pay attention to the details of the world building: Obi-Wan's fighter needs those auxiliary rings to enter hyperspace in episode 2. But later on smaller ships get this kind of capability built in. There are a whole lot of fun little world building aspects and as the empire rules the galaxy the periferies of the empire and the rebels can't afford to keep shiny ships and everything gets a bit janky. This is more or less believable.
"Bigger isn't always better"
I wish they still made movies with pre-’90s visual effects.
Visual effects never bothered me. I think it was pretty good for its time 👍👍
Me neither
Should not have sold it to Disney.
The Prequel Trilogy is far more beloved than the sequel trilogy. Had to correct that one
I prefer Yoda puppet than Yoda CGI. 😊👍 I don't like Disney ones. I think they should have not given up Jar-jar Sith Story.
When you look at evolution of Steven Spielberg camera moves this is clearly the case. Back when he was making Jaws and films from that era, he was bound by physical restraints of camera movement and he produced some of the most beautiful and effective cinematography along side his DP off course. But when we get to CG era, he starts to indulge in wild camera movements, just because he can do it now, and they that fails to tell a better story, because it takes the viewer outside the scene and draws attention to the camera move. And that is a mistake. Soon as the camera move draws attention to itself and not the thing its being filmmed, it has failed as a move. CG allows virtually limitless camera movement in virtual space, hence its easy to make such mistakes because there is no physical reality to remind you that your ego is not your amigo. As for Star Wars. if I'm not mistaken New Hope and Empire Strikes Back had best of simply storytelling combined with cutting edge, but still limited VFX by skillful artists of the day. When Lucas was making prequels, he prioritized pushing VFX to push for new barriers, but sacrificed the story because his ego demanded he does it all by himself. The results are inferior, until we get to woke era crap, than its just freaking disaster, but at least VFX got better.
Are you kidding? The shark in Jaws looked terrible. It was so terrible, he had to change the script so it didn't appear unless it was necessary. Now yes, this ended up accidently making the movie more suspenseful. But had it been a key point in the movie for the shark to appear more, then the entire movie would have been in trouble.
I have a feeling you don't know what "woke" means.
@@arch_caff enlighten me, child.
@@KrunoslavStifter Taken from the Oxford definition: "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination". I think the phrase you're looking for is "deceptively preachy"? This is mostly because the little woke representation there is just ends up censored in other regions anyway, because Disney wouldn't DARE to miss out on international markets. I know it doesn't roll off the tongue, but it's more accurate to describe one of many problems that plague the sequels. Also I'll be honest, the "deceptively preachy" aspects of those films are probably the least of the sequels' problems.
@@arch_caff Explain what you mean by "deceptively preachy". Also Oxford definition: "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" is another way to say intersectional communist, although must are too stupid to be actual communists, so they are known as useful idiots. Term used by the communists to described such people. For most people woke means insufferable lefty SJW. There is a whole long history behind the movement, but its beyond the scope of what I originally was commenting on. Suffice to say that the expression of Go Woke, Go Broke, is there for a reason. If you want to grab yourself some bud light and watch another woke garbage movie, be my guest, but I will not be joining you.
I think a lot of the prequel trilogy's CGI was done well in comparison to its contemporaries. A lot of practical work still had to go into making characters like Jar Jar interact with live-action actors in a believable way. A funny bit of trivia is that because of a lot of practical work both behind-the-scenes and in the films, the prequels actually used more miniatures than the sequels would go on to.
Personally I believe the prequels are set at a more prosperous era, where there are free trades, so things are more shiny, the original series are set at the era similar to 1984, all resources must go to the emperor, so lives are more gray and hopeless looking.
The thing about tech in the prequels being too polished: That's not true for the empire when comparing it to the republic. And the rebels weren't so polished because they were rather poor and had to do with what they had. And for me it's also not true that an imperfect VFX shot takes me out of the story, I more have a problem with plotholes, which the sequels had a whole lot more than OT and prequels.
I'd also argue the use of cgi would not have been criticized so heavily if the plots of the three prequels were better written. When people check out from what's happening in the story they start to pay attention to just what is visually on screen. I'd argue the Phantom Menace as a fantastic balance of cgi and practical effects. However, people gAenerally don't like that film because of the writing, so the cgi moment stand out. The worst offender is definitely Attack of the Clones, which tries way too hard to push the limits of the tech while having a terrible script with terrible pacing. A good story is always enjoyable, even if you can see the tricks on screen. If you want an example from another film, rewatch Terminator 2. I watched it last night and there are a lot of continuity errors, rough cgi, stunt doubles way too close to the camera with their faces clearly visible. None of that really diminishes the experience though because it's a fantastically well written and well paced film.
4:23 errrrrr.... No. Those movies came up in the 2000s. I expected them to look smoother than the 70s...
Some shots in some films are composited that well that sometimes I am surprised that some model the actor was using was not 100% CG. In such a case I usually ask myself why they even bothered to give the actor something to use when they not only CG the background, but cut out and CG the thing the actor was using anyway.
I think that digital affects look more perfect if the makers use VR headsets
My Dad had the Original Star Wars movies on Laserdisc. He would point out the black matte around the Millennium Falcon as it was going down the Space worm(?) neck in empire. I definitely perfere those versions to Lucas updating them in the 90s.
I guess CGI have a few positives. I have to say that Top Gun Maverick is a masterpiece... here you have an air combat between a F14 Tomcat (a plane which no longer exist in a flyable condition in the western world) that fights against two SU57 Russian stealth fighter planes - planes which Russia would never accept lending out to an American movie, and especially not when both planes gets shot down by an American pilot. And I think also that the use of CGI in the battle of Poltava scenes in the movie the "Sovereign's servant" (2007) are okay. I mean building a huge army of white men, provide them with Swedish and Russian 18th century uniforms and get enough people who can ride a horse in real life to make a cavalry charge is perhaps not possible. So then can CGI be an okay substitute for the lack available walk-on. For example do I not think it is possible to gather 10.000 horse riders for a battle scene anymore because of the lack of male actors that can ride a horse, lack of funds, and the logistical difficulty of hiring and gathering so many men and horses to one and the same spot to record a movie. It could work back in the 1920s and 1940s when armies still had thousands of horses available... but not today - so then I think CGI is the only realistic option for filming a large cavalry charge. The only problem I have with the movie Sovereign's servants is that you see the same actors faces show up again, and again and again on camera. In one shot they pretend to be a Russian officer, and in the next they are acting as a Swedish soldier and perhaps wear a whig as a pathethic attempt to disguise the fact that you see the same actor playing multiple roles in the same movie. I just think to myself "gosh, couldn't you just hire 3 or 4 more people for this movie instead?"
Most of these points are just a call for Directors/VFS Supes to exercise a bit of bloody backbone and place some restrictions on what they re attempting to show with CG. Rogue One, for instance, was a purely digital VFX effort, but the set themselves the goal of only trying to do tings you might have seen in an original trilogy movie.
people saying they care more about plot than vfx like the prequels didn't have the worst writing ever committed to screen
More like NASA without CGI
I agree with everything but the fact that the prequels are supposed to look older. I don't like the prequels but I got the fact that they all look shiny and exotic because it was the "good old days" of the republic where the Empire hasn't come to power yet.
Problem with CGI is that is available to every director, is like having a monkey on the driverseat, Practical FX needed a genious mind who will invest brains and creativity in order to enhance the story, not the other way around! now cgi compensates the lack of story and heart with ok visuals
The only way I could shake the whole "Why is it so polished?" feeling when seeing the first of the prequels was by telling myself, of course it looks that way because everything is less ran down and hasnt had a chance to look like "A hunk of junk" yet, and the Empire running the Galaxy in the originals just let everything not important to them degrade over the decades since the Clone Wars. I thought about SW a lot back then. Not very much since.
The first time seeing the Phantom Menace it was a pirate copy being projected on a wall at a Warehouse party. Had been up all weekend and there it was, a follow up to my favorite childhood films being played randomly by a VJ. So low quality you could barely make out Practical from VFX. Not knowing much about any prequel films and completely...erm... artificially sleep deprived it was surreal as it sounds... and a good friend.
You might think it is "real" for the prequels to look older but it is also real that they weren't made in the late '70s.
عشقی آقای سبز😁💚
Your entire premise is wrong. The Prequels have gone way up in people's ratings while the sequel trilogy has most definitely gone nowhere but down. Also, there are MORE model shots in just the TPM than in the entirety of the OG trilogy combined. The same goes for practical creatures. There was a great deal of model work in Ep2 as well, but the sheer number of VFX shots also increased and that was only feasible because...digital effects (if they stuck with models, it would have required ten years to make). As for the sequel trilogy, there's not a single model shot even in The Force Awakens. As much as JJ Abrams TALKED about going old school, nothing could be farther from the truth. He was paying lip service to the "CG sucks" crowd that's been demonizing modern VFX. He's second place only to Chris Nolan on the fake Luddite award (as much as Nolan loves to tout doing everything for real on film, every single frame of his movies gets scanned and digitally touched up- so filming on large format film is nothing but a waste and a pain for the post-processing people to ultimately get an inferior result than if he just shot on modern digital cameras).
Excellent point! I would suggest the creator of the video watch the amazing videos from So Uncivilized, he's done wonderful essays making sense of that, just like your comment.
Đúng là nhà sang tạo hay thật làm mv❤❤❤❤
Nah I’m glad they used vfx for the prequels
The prequels used vastly more practical effects than the sequel trilogy. The look and feel of the sequel trilogy doesn't remind me of the OT at all.
I agree, I think practical effects look more realistic because they have textures. Dark Crystal is a great example, I know people who refuse to watch that show because the Gelfling look too much like living creatures. CGI just has some trouble getting that right. But when you use both puppetry and CGI you get masterpieces like Small Soldiers. I also think the 3 wheel landspeeder bounce and rotation into the frame looks more real and natural than a speeder that just glides through the air. Like something has to be making it float and the bounce makes it seem like it’s pushing against the ground which just feels better. I think the full clone armies were a mistake because they look fake. There’s literally a clone who just kinda floats into the seat of a car in the background of one of the shots in episode two. If they used motion capture to record someone actually jumping into a chair then put that awful model over that it would at least look better. I think practical effects are just typically better, but a combination of the two definitely yields the best results.
That scene of the giant star destroyers all bunched up is ghastly. You don't deploy a fleet like that. In fact you can't, there'd be collisions at hypersonic speed until it was a cloud of vapor and debris. Not to mention it's impossible to use most of the armaments. Hollyweird really needs to have sci-fi writers write sci-fi and feminist documentary writers write feminist documentaries...
How you know the reality Make the guide video
🎉
Adipurush is Trending Bro, Do something on it.
Use each technique according to its strengths. Maintain discipline and do what needs to be done to ensure the highest degree of quality & immersion.
Idk
Everything is better without jar-jar!
Extraction 2 show of VFX
Nasa usa o editor para vídeos da nasa por favor para ver se e cgi
The hottest take I've ever seen
But old practical stuff still look fake. If something looks like a puppet and not a real monster, it looks fake. I guess he's trying to say that the physics look real with puppet, but still the effect as a whole looks obiously fake.
Can u do adipurish indian movie
This is hilarious . 😂😂
Slm
I don't agree. Prequells would be impossible without CGI. The CGI is clearly superior than practical effects. But off course there are good and bad versions of both.
😮😮😮😊
Bro please uploade short video
Strong disagree on this one. I admit some effects aren't perfect but when they get it right, it's just superior in all possible ways. Imagine puppet Yoda fighting Dooku and Palpatine, or imagine him feeling all Jedi deaths during the purge without showing a single emotion on his face. Stating that prequels tech should feel "older", which i understand as even jankier than sequels', also shows a lack of attention and/or understanding on how thechnology and political context intertwine in Star Wars. Prequels era is a peaceful one, with many civilizations coexisting all throughout the galaxy, and they are showed on screen throughout the movies. These civilizations aren't being ripped off of their ressources by an imperialist force at the time of the movies. And shiny and impressive doesn't necessarily mean more advanced. To use a common exemple, Naboo having shiny spaceships doesn't mean that they're more advanced, it just reflects their design tastes. They like their ships geometrical and shiny, just like they like their architecture being roman-like. It doesn't in any way tell us anything about these ships actual performance compared to the OT ones. We also have the exemple of Jedi starfighters needing modular rings to go in hyperspace during the prequels when small ships don't need this technology anymore in the OT. Talking about the OT, imperial ships are standardized and all look the same kinda. The Rebellion, on the other hand, needs to use old janky ships (and most people do) bc they lack the ressources taken away by the Empire. That's why we don't see shiny impressive spaceships. We also see less planets, less cultures that potentially have better ships. Different context, different ways of travelling and fighting.
😢😢😂❤
I'm not a star wars fan at all. Just don't get them.
Scrolling through comments triggered by the first sentence.
When I watch a movie, I only care about the plot. I don't care about how accurate digital or practical effects are, any more than you care about what type of computer or keyboard I used to enter this comment.
Раньше фильмы- были Фильмами.. а сейчас каждый фантастический фильм - это просто мультфильм..смотреть неинтересно сейчас фильмы.. Да, графика хорошая, но души в фильмах нет..
If the film is good, and the CGI is good, how are we cheated? And who the hell is using your logic that the prequel sequels should look old simply because they're meant to be set before the originals? Only an idiot would think that, come back to living in reality where we understand that the originals were released decades ago and technology wasn't as advanced.
This video is so spot on! A storyteller establishes the rules in his universe and then has to abide by them. Lucas didn't care and was a lazy writer and creator with so much power and money. Let's start with a simple thing. R2D2 taking a flight of stairs in the original Star Wars. If you understand the constraints of what he worked with in the 1977 movie you know the remote control model or Kenny Baker in costume would have an almost impossible time with this. In Empire R2D2 falls a significant distance when Luke loses concentration when levitating him. But in the prequel he flies around with ease. No problems. Barely an inconvenience. This is one example.
Do you really need to do a video to support this fact ?? :D More seriously the problem of the prelogy VFX is that they aged very badly. The more I see the movies, the more my eyes bleed. The general plot (Vader/Empire genesys) was good, the result is so poor... I compare Ep IV/V/VI (not the Special Editions) and EP I/II/II like StarTrek TOS and TNG : the original got flaws but it got life in it. And the flaws were from the era, what was possible at the time.
To answer your first question, the prequel trilogy just sucked all the way around. Acting sucked, directing sucked and special effects were some of the worst I can think of. No one wonders why they are hated. Everyone already knows.
Prequels are awesome and way better than this new trash
First❤
I think the biggest problem with the way CGI effects were applied in the prequel trilogy was the psychology of applying them. Because they were so self-impressed by how MUCH they could do with CGI compared to the original trilogy, they didn't bother applying any discipline how well they did it. I also think there has been a shift in audience psychology. When productions first started depending heavily on CGI, I think people were irritated because movies suddenly looked like video games instead of movies. Now, we've largely accepted that sci fi and fantasy movies will look like video games, and way more people love video games. Far fewer people make models.
Really idiotic video, each of the prequels on their own had more practical effects than the original trilogy combined and TPM was the one with the most of all Star Wars films (even the Disney ones). Plus the CGI of the prequels was innovative and used creatively unlike a lot of current blockbusters. Also lol at the disingenuous attempts to criticise the CGI. "If they are just slightly off" but you never elaborate on why, "if the lighting is a little wrong" but the lighting is perfectly fine, "if the physics aren't quite right" but Yoda jumping looks good, "if the eyelines don't line up" and this is the worst one because you literally drew lines that aren't even pointing to where Obi-Wan is looking. Also I don't see what's "unconvincing" about Obi-Wan ducking as Jar Jar's ears almost hit him. You ignore the thematic aspect of how the prequels are set in the dying years of a golden age, which means that everything is more flashy and how it contrasts with the originals being set under the rule of a tyrannical Empire sucking the life out of all. Also, this happened IRL with Germany. Prequels = 1920s. Originals = 1933-45. It's not hard to get this. Of course you end the video with a lie, the sequels used more CGI than the prequels over all lol. TFA compared against TPM and AOTC individually has more CGI than either. TLJ has more than TPM but the same as AOTC. TROS has more than TPM and AOTC compared individually. ROTS has the most because of that amazing opening battle. This misinformation campaign against the prequels is getting tiring.
where are the jokes?
first
PLEASE DO TVIS TO THE ISS SPACE STATION. I know they are lying to us. Please
I hate Peter Jackson movies because he uses too much of everything... In Lord of the Rings, King Kong, Pearl Harbor and in every goddamn movie he makes. There are always so much special effects and gigantic armies in the background that it gets difficult to stay focused on the storyline in the movie which makes the movie interesting. It feels like the movie exist more for the sake of showing special effects, rather than special effects serve to improve the movie. As a sound technician this behavious reminds me of how the music industry behaves everytime a new special effect has been invented, and everyone wants to try it and overuse it and ruin music with it. The auto-tune effect for example did at one point just get annoying, and instead of being a helpful tool in the toolbox for music creators did this special effect just do more damage than good by people stopped using their creativity and fantasy to come up with something new and original instead of sh*tty copies of previous works. CGI also a reason why I hate the movie Troy, there is so many warships in this movie that things just gets ridiculous and unrealistic and one just want the worthless movie to end. And while I do admire the effects in the Transformers movies do I think there are too much firing lasers everywhere and robots jumping around superfast everywhere.. like the CGI creators just wanna brag with effects of robots transforming from robot to machine back and fourth, instead of giving us in the audiance a chance to just enjoy a few seconds of machine porn by looking at marvelous F4 Phantom plane (Blitzwing) for example - a plane which is no longer use in any military and any airplane lover would love to see that Vietnam war aircraft. Personally do I like Bumblebee (2018) the most of the transformers movies because the robots at least have some visual resemblance with the original cartoons. I have not yet watched the Lion King CGI. And while I have to say that I am enormously impressed by Disneys special effects, I will say that they seem to have destroyed that movie. Too much emphasis have been put on REALISM and too little the character of this movie. What made the old movie from 1994 so great was that it was so extremely colorful. That was not so realistic, but it was beautiful too look at all the exotic nature of Africa.. every image looked like an art piece. And the characters did show very clear facial expressions which you can see on cartoons but not so much on wild animals. So when the movie producers sacrificed the fantasy colorful landscapes and animals... and did away with facial expressions for the sake of realism did the characters become less likeable. You could no longer see the same feelings of horror, grief, love, horniness, and so on. And because of CGI limitations and emphasis on realism, would you not see animals jumping around playfully like in the cartoon movie, but instead would all bodily movements be more restrained and less playful. And all this restrained the characters from expressing their distinct personality which made them likeable. Had I been a movie producer and wanted to show off what Disney was able to do with CGI... then I would compromise away some realism for the sake of the magical exotical colors, and the lions, Timon and Pumba would be allowed to show exagerated unrealistic facial expressions. And Hans Zimmers great music would be kept.
Your English? Weird.