They should have used actors and make-up!
..and not CGI-it ruined the feel of the film-they looked ANIMATED! It was like playing a game on a Playstation
share..and not CGI-it ruined the feel of the film-they looked ANIMATED! It was like playing a game on a Playstation
shareCGI does have an advantage though... it can be updated as it gets better. CGI today is much improved over the past decade. It's only going to get better.
So, in theory, a movie could be re-released with updated graphics. If you've seen the updated Star Trek:TOS, you'll be very impressed at how good it looks with all the 'splosions, improved planets, etc.
Whether it would be worth it financially for a studio to do it... well, it would certainly be cheaper than redoing an entire movie from scratch. It might not make as much, but neither would it cost as much. If they made use of deleted and alternate scenes, they could almost fashion a 'new' movie.
Yes, it took me out of the film each time they showed up and I have still not finished watching this film.
shareI don't care if it's real or CGI, but if you are going to make it CGI, make it GOOD CGI. This is a decent movie brought down a notch or two by baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad effects.
shareYeah the CGI could have been better edited but it was still a great film.
share