Even when they have a huge budget, and other CGI effects are great, the creatures (including baby Yoda) look ridiculously out dated.
Is it because they are using practical effects? I suppose its nice that someone is keeping that skill alive. Or is it (nostalgia) grandfathered in from 1970s character designs?
No one agrees with you. This show looks better than DC movie.
shareNot sure why people are getting so emotional. I didn't mean to say CGI is better than practical effects... when badly applied they can both be very bad. And as mentioned the sweet spot is probably a combination of the two.
However for a show of this quality, the creature effects are shockingly bad -- regardless of the method used. That tadpole was ridiculous. But my question has been answered -- they do get a pass, based on nostalgia.
Fortunately no one agrees with you, newb.
shareWTF was that scrawny weasel or whatever?
That looked like something from the Muppet show ... Kermit the frog looks so much more realistic than that ... thing ...
And baby yoda now looks like ... plastic ... one step down from the gremlins ...
Haha, that weasel was ridiculous AND unnecessary. I was so confused I couldn't even find it hilarious. There is such a thing as real pet weasels... why not use that?? Sometimes I think I imagined it.
shareI love the way baby yoda is a Henson-like creation. Restores the sense of wonder we had when we saw the originals. I think most people like the baby yoda and the bad reception The Hobbit got shows people are weary of the fake look of CGI.
share