>>7229696Tell me *exactly* why CGI sucks, specifically in the case of the CGI ships in Rogue One - how are they inherently inferior in any way to whatever practical models were used in Interstellar in any way that’s detectable on-screen?
I’m not saying CGI is the best solution for everything, but in the case of hardbodied objects like spaceships, it’s almost impossible for audiences to tell the difference between top-tier CG and practical assets - shit, even back in the day motherfuckers were complaining about how “everything” in the Star Wars prequels were CGI when there more practical models and miniature sets for those films than were built for the OT.
Folks just like to talk out of their ass about how fundamentally terrible CGI is, without understanding how (or why) it’s even used. And my analogy about writing in stone is spot-on, because it;s not about the language, it;s about the tools - CGI shots in today’s films are changed all the time, with camera placement and movement often being adjusted repeatedly throughout the lifetime of a shot, requiring assets to be flexible and capable of being re-rendered at any angle on the fly, which is something you simply can’t do if the model assets you have on hand are static shots filmed in a warehouse in Van Nuys of a real-world model. That real-world model footage is useless if the director suddenly decides that the camera needs to be offset by 30 degrees and with the sun behind the ships rather than being the key lighting source from the side. It’ll drive everyone in animation and lighting crazy to have to change it, but at least they can make those changes in an afternoon, whereas it would take Larry a week in that warehouse in Van Nuys to refill all those assets again.
