Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Now that most will have seen it, we have to address the CGI. It was great to see him, but the CGI was woeful and ruined what could have been a truly great reveal.
|
It's a bit odd.
The CGI Tarkin in Rogue One was pretty good; the CGI Leia in the same film was ropey - about the same as the CGI Luke in this week's Mandalorian. Meanwhile, I re-watched Captain Marvel during the week and the de-ageing they did on Samuel L Jackson and Clark Gregg was astonishingly good. In the case of the Mandalorian, Mark Hamill is credited as Luke Skywalker so you would have hoped it would have been a case of de-ageing his own face rather than mapping a CGO version of his face onto another actor, as was required in Rogue One. They *should* have been able to do it better than they did - the technology is more than able. However, I suspect the problem is the Mandalorian was conceived as a modest-budget production. For all the trumpeting the super-high technology they use to create virtual environments in The Volume at Lucasfilm, it is at the end of the day a TV studio, being used to create an almost entirely studio-bound show, and the reason for doing that is it's cheaper.
I suspect the mundane reason why Luke Skywalker didn't look very convincing is that by the time they got to the final episode they didn't have enough budget left to pay someone for the time required to do any better, which is a real shame.