The use of practical effects was really well done but from a directorial standpoint it wasn't revolutionary.
Most people say jawsStar Wars along with Indiana Jones helped to bring about the blockbuster.
We take it for granted now since it's the norm.
I mean you have a point, the industrial lights and magic company lucas made and the optical effects were really well done. I'm aware a lot of work was put into the sets and practical effects, I just feel like there are other directors who could've visually made a similar film, it wasn't even as close as visually revolutionary as something like 2001 a space odyssey but it soared in areas 2001 did not in it's characters, exciting action etc. They're just completely different spectrums of sci-fi as 2001 is a cerebral cognitive sci-fi movie. I'm not trying to downplay the special effects i just feel ilke audiences cared more about the characters, lightsabers and shyt like that.You kinda bugging' breh, you do realize the special effects were done with a technique never used before? It actually took them over 2 years to impose actual large scale models over backdrops and then again with added effects.
The Millennium Falcon was a actual size, like a couple dozen meters and a separate set for the interior. Lucas said it was the most elaborate and painstaking set featured in all the films.
Actually in the Force Awakens Harrison Ford broke his leg when the door to the ship closed and locked on him. Abrams injured his back trying to save him.
The effort and effects put into each film is very revolutionary. Sometimes you may be staring at something not even realizing it's effects.
Because they're fukkin nerds who know more than the creator.... But Lucas tampered too much with the originals then clusterfukked the prequels. He eventually said fukk it. Yall make this shyt.so why did the star wars nerds turn they back on George Lucas