I gotta say, I am happy to see Rogue One use both Pracs and CGI compared to JJ who used CGI for the Star Destroyers, Millennium Falcon etc.
Still though would have been better if the Rogue One AT-AT's were not CGI.
>>68204442
>The CGI of Force Awakens
Seriously JJ, why didn't you at least try with a model of the Star Destroyer? Why make it complete CG...
>would have been better if the Rogue One AT-AT's were not CGI.
No it wouldn't have.
>>68204750
It looks fine in motion. Stills make CGI look like shit.
>>68204876
Yes it would
>>68204921
The AT-ATs look fine. You are making up problems that aren't there.
>>68204945
you can still tell they are computer generated compared to the pracs of ESB which gives it more of a realistic feel.
>>68205151
I could tell that the practical one in V were models. What is your goddamn point?
>>68205169
>I could tell that the practical one in V were models
not true at all. especially as a kid I literally thought they were life like, they not at all look like models.
And if they do kinda look like models, they definitely don't look to be 5 inches at all.
https://youtu.be/R-nDa-byKaU
>>68205302
>as a kid
That is literally completely fucking irrelevant
>>68204918
It looks very fake, even in motion
Uncanny valley
>>68205809
Lol what a goober
>>68205302
They really screwed up the walker design in Rouge Won.
>>68204918
>It looks fine in motion
I don't think so. still looks fake
>>68205993
Better than someone moving a toy in front of a blue screen.
>>68205991
>Rouge Won.
I see what you did there
>>68206089
1/10
Outta the way, Disney animator, this thing might poke your eyes out!
>>68206197
Looks like the Alien 1979 ship
Practical Effects rule
