The raptors that are CG in most of the shots that aren’t just their heads? Like the entire sequence where they chase the kids… you’re also comparing things wit

The raptors that are CG in most of the shots that aren’t just their heads? Like the entire sequence where they chase the kids… you’re also comparing things without considering how the process created them. Avatar wouldn’t look any more real with practical work. It’s just not possible to make robotics today that can have that level of articulation and micro expression. the reason it doesn’t look “real” is because the film makers didn’t want it to look real. It’s meant to be fantastical. You claim most CG is bad in films but I’d argue that you, like many others, glomp onto the bad CG and ignore all the fantastic CG that you don’t notice. How many people do you think noticed that the entire environment they’re in isn’t real in these shots? https://youtu.be/V5mS7BHmZJI https://youtu.be/V5mS7BHmZJI Often what people consider “bad CG” is overly apparent CG. This can be down to three things: 1. Budget. Both money and time. 2. Deliberate Aesthetic choices 3. Directors often put CG more in your face than practicals Practicals wouldn’t make a difference there because they’d fall prey to the exact same issues which is why they’re often replaced in post anyway. Aesthetics are a big one. The visual style between the original Jurassic Park trilogy and the Jurassic World trilogy is different. The new trilogy is significantly more fantastical in style and lighting. This is why you can’t just randomly compare shots between different films. They’re created by different teams with different goals. You need to compare against the raptors etc in the same film or where similar choices were made. When people say “I wish this was done with practicals”, what I think they mean is “I wish this was better” but ignore the why.